What is Typology? 

Adam’s sonship. Moses’s cruciform prayer. Rahab’s scarlet thread. Samson’s victorious death. Isaiah’s suffering servant. Jonah’s resurrection from the deep. And Cyrus’s great commission to rebuild the temple.

Across the pages of Scripture, we find public persons, historical events, and heavenly institutions, playing significant roles in their own day and for generations to come. To the sevenfold list just offered, we could add seventy-seven more. For throughout God’s plan of salvation, there are persons, events, and institutions ordained by God to give us the rise and fall of biblical history. Yet, these historical figures, and the stories that introduce them, also form the basis for biblical types that foreshadow future events.

For those who read the New Testament, it doesn’t take long to see how the Apostles explain the person and work of Jesus through the categories of the Old Testament. Jesus is a prophet like Moses, a priest like Melchizedek, a king like David, and a spotless lamb like the sacrifices of Leviticus and Numbers. Just the same, when we open the Old Testament, we find passages that resemble (or better: prefigure) the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. In a word, Scripture is unified around the revelation of God’s Son (Luke 24:27; John 5:39; Heb. 1:1–2; 2 Pet. 1:10–12), and if we are going to understand the Bible and its variegated-yet-unified message, we must come to grips with biblical types and something called typology.

But what is typology? And how do types work?

Is typology a way of reading Scripture, wherein the interpreter employs a typological method of reading? Or, is typology something we find in the text itself, a God-inspired way of writing that assumes the Spirit of God has inspired every word of Scripture, including the types and shadows that point to something later and greater? Who makes a type? Are types in the eyes of the beholder? Or are types something given to us by God and revealed to us in Scripture?

How one answers these questions will have a massive impact on how they interpret Scripture and do biblical theology. For in fact, different types of biblical theology (e.g., dispensational, covenantal, Roman Catholic, etc.) emerge from differing approaches to typology. This is a point made by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum in Kingdom through Covenant.^[1] It is also evidenced in the way Graeme Goldsworthy introduced macro-typology as a significant pillar for his own approach to biblical theology.^[2] Likewise, biblical theologian Jim Hamilton has spent considerable time on typology, proving again that you cannot do biblical theology without having a firm grasp on typology.^[3]

But this only stresses the point: What is typology?

In this essay, I want to introduce typology as a literary feature of God’s inspired Word. Without going into all the academic debates, I will define typology and then demonstrate how typology is discerned in Scripture.^[4] Indeed, our all-wise God introduced biblical patterns (types) into history and Scripture in order to bring his plan of salvation to completion in Jesus Christ. And receiving his written revelation, Christians must now understand how typology works in the Bible so that they can make sense of the big picture and its many interconnected parts. Accordingly, seeking to understand how types work in the Bible is not just an exercise in the esoteric; it is vital for all forms of biblical interpretation and spiritual formation.

4. David Schrock, “What Designates a Valid Type? A Christotelic, Covenantal Proposal,” Southeastern Theological Review 5.1 (Summer 2014): 3–26; David Schrock, “From Beelines to Plotlines: Typology That Follows the Covenantal Topography of Scripture,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.1 (Spring 2017): 35–56.

With that in mind, let’s define typology.

What is a Type?

When Sam Emadi and I wrote our dictionary article on “Typology” in the Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, we defined typology as

The study of patterns (types) in the Bible that escalate over time until they find their intended fulfillment in Christ and his Church. Like seeds planted in the soil of the OT, biblical types are persons, places, events, and institutions that develop across redemptive history until they reach full-flower in God’s climactic revelation in Christ. God designed types as a form of revelation to prepare the way for his Son and in the fullness of time, biblical types proved to be an important way NT authors demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ.^[5]

5. David Schrock and Samuel Emadi, “Typology,” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 897. This definition follows the train of many other scholars that conjoin textual correspondence and theological escalation across redemptive history. For instance, Leonard Goppelt’s definition is a standard, “Only historical facts—persons, actions, events, and institutions—are material for typological interpretation; words and narratives can be utilized only insofar as they deal with such matters. These things are to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be divinely ordained representations or types of future realities that are even greater and more complete. If the antitype does not represent a heightening of the type, if it is merely a repetition of the type, then it can be called typology only in certain instances and in a limited way.” Leonard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 17–18.

From this opening definition, we showed how the Spirit of Christ inspired the Old Testament prophets (from Moses to Malachi) to introduce types (persons, places, events, and institutions) in Scripture, in accordance with the details of history, such that they would form the backdrop for the Son to come into the world. Thus, we argued that types in the Old Testament are prospective, as they move from the Law through the Prophets and Writings to Jesus. Equally, we showed how the New Testament authors penned their Spirit-inspired testimony to Christ by means of applying Old Testament patterns to the person and work of Christ and his Church. In this way, we suggested the New Testament patterns of speech were retrospective. Together, the whole Bible points to Jesus Christ such that those who want to be conformed into Christ’s image must see how these types naturally lead to their divinely intended goal—namely, Jesus Christ.

Thus, types are placed in redemptive history and biblical revelation by the Spirit of God, so that those who trust in Christ might see them and understand what they are saying. Yet, believing that they are there and proving their presence is not the same. And that is where this essay picks up to offer you three characteristics of biblical types and five ways to see them in Scripture. So let’s look.

Three Characteristics of a Biblical Type

First, “type” is a biblical word.

Across the New Testament, we learn that Paul and the author of Hebrews use the Greek word typos to describe people (Adam in Romans 5:14), events (the history of Israel in 1 Corinthians 10:6), and institutions (the tabernacle in Hebrews 8:5). Yet, translated by the ESV, the English reader might not immediately make the connection to typology, because the word typos is rendered as “type,” “examples,” and “pattern, “ respectively. Likewise, when Peter compares Christian baptism to Noah’s ark, he uses the word antiypon, or “correspondence” (1 Pet. 3:21). In other words, he sees baptism as the antitype and Noah’s ark as the type.^[6]

6. For a complete exegetical investigation of the New Testament use of typos, see Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical TYPOS Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).

Clearly, each of these uses is unique and needs to be examined in context. But the point to be made is twofold. First, types are found in Scripture and named by various apostles. And second, without restricting types to those named in the New Testament, types can and should be defined by their use in Scripture.^[7] In other words, while many have employed various literary theories to define typology, this moves too quickly. Scripture itself is the first and best place to define typology, and so we should look there.

7. For an example of typology that is not named in the New Testament, see Sam Emadi, From Prisoner to Prince: The Joseph Story in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2022).

Even if various literary theorists have provided worthwhile tools and concepts for furthering our understanding of typology, we must recognize that the Bible itself gives us definitions and direction for seeing what the Spirit inspired. Jesus himself taught his disciples how to read the Old Testament, and even before Christ and the gift of the Spirit, the prophets of Israel showed great sensitivity to the way in which they spoke and wrote based upon previous patterns of sound doctrine. Thus, the first characteristic of biblical types is that they are explicitly named in Scripture and we should learn from the inspired authors how to understand them.

Second, biblical types are historical realities, not metaphysical mysteries.

While philosophers like Plato have used “typology” to speak of metaphysical realities, and some biblical scholars have argued that books like Hebrews are employing platonic categories, we need to see that in Scripture, typology is always rooted in history. To put it differently, types in the Bible are not signs or symbols that point to some rational idea or moral norm outside of the Bible. Instead, they are evidences of divine revelation. As God spoke to his prophets verbally, so he also revealed himself to his prophets visually.

For instance, Moses received a vision of heaven on Mount Sinai that would correspond to the tabernacle he would build through the Spirit-filled artisans led by Bezalel. As we read in Exodus 25:9, 40, Moses was given a pattern for the tabernacle. And as Hebrews 8:5 tells it, the earthly tent was a copy of the heavenly original. But also, as Ardel Caneday has observed, this vertical correspondence between the heavenly temple and its earthly type brought into history a prophetic revelation. That is to say, the tabernacle that was revealed from heaven became a historical type that pointed to the day when Christ would first become a greater temple (John 1:14) and then enter the true temple made without hands (Heb. 9:11, 24).

To move from the specific example of the tabernacle to the ongoing pattern in the Old Testament, God introduced into history persons, events, institutions, as well as covenants, that brought redemption to Israel (think: the exodus). Yet, these historical realities also prepared the way for a greater salvation, which is why they are called types. With the benefit of historical perspective, we see that these things are prospective pointers to later and greater realities. Indeed, this heightening of expectations is called “escalation,” and it explains the historical relationship between type and antitype, or shadow and substance, as Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 10:1 frame it.

At the same time, it is important to see that types in the Bible are more than a superficial comparison between two similar persons, events, or institutions. Rather, between Adam and Jesus there are countless “Adams” (Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, David, etc.) who reinforce the pattern and bring the last Adam ever closer. The same is true with the tabernacle, which is followed by Moses’s tabernacle, David’s meeting house (1 Chron. 6:31–32), Solomon’s temple, the second temple, and finally Jesus and his church. Events like the Passover are also repeated in history, as Rahab’s salvation depends upon a Passover-like event (Joshua 2), and Zechariah’s visions of salvation come in the middle of the night (Zechariah 1–6).

In the end, these typological structures, which are composed of multiple, escalating types, become a significant part of reading the Bible and seeing what God has revealed. Put negatively, one cannot understand Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, king, temple, sacrifice, or anything else without a biblical typology rooted in history and the progress of revelation. In this way, biblical types are rooted in history and revealed in the text of Scripture.

Third, biblical types must be discernible from the biblical text and not just the imagination of the interpreter.

In church history and among academics, there have been many debates about what makes a type valid and how Christians can recognize them in Scripture. In the definition above, I pointed to a few things that spotlight biblical types, but now I will get more specific. Here are five ways to identify a type in Scripture.

1. Some types are explicitly identified.

As we have seen already, some types are named in Scripture. In Romans 5:14 Adam is a type of Christ; Hebrews 8:5 calls the tabernacle a type of the true temple in heaven; and Peter says baptism “corresponds to” Noah’s watery salvation as a means of salvation (1 Pet. 3:21). There are other types, however, that do not employ the word typos, but remain typological. For instance, Peter says that Jesus is a prophet like Moses in Acts 3:22–26 (cf. Deut. 18:15–18); Paul calls Jesus the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7); Hebrews 5–7 compares Jesus to Melchizedek (cf. Genesis 14; Psalm 110). In fact, the whole book of Hebrews teaches Christians how to see the shadows of Christ surpassed in his substance, but that takes us beyond the explicit typology of the New Testament.

2. Some types are connected to a series of biblical images.

That is to say, there are certain “biblical threads” that progress throughout the Bible.^[8] Usually, these threads start with a historical person, event, or institution, they experience some form of escalation within the Old Testament itself, and then they find their greatest fulfillment in Christ and sometimes, by extension, the church. A few examples of this typology include the exodus/exile, tabernacle/temple, the promised land, priests and kings, marriage and adultery, and the biblical covenants. Indeed, every book in Crossway’s Short Studies in Biblical Theology is employing some degree of biblical typology. And if you want to see how these things develop go read one of those. Maybe start here, with my personal favorite.

8. Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 253–56, calls these macro-types. He lists eighteen different macro-types: God and creation; God’s breath and the creation of human beings; Eden and dominion over creation; redemption; covenant and calling; promises of land, people, name, and blessing; captivity and exodus; prophetic word; law structures; redemptive temple worship; possession of the land; nationhood and leaders; kingship, temple, and David’s throne; Solomon and national decline; destruction and exile; prophetic ministries; and return and rebellion.

While each typological thread is developed in its own way, there will be a shared pattern of development. This is something I have called “covenantal topography,” and it is the idea that each typological structure in Scripture moves through the same covenant history and thus they each, in their own unique way, will form, deform, and reform over time. Or to put it canonically,

“types” are introduced in the Pentateuch, improved or deformed in the Prophets, and fulfilled in Christ (and his church). Therefore, when identifying types, we should be aware of more than the type. We must begin to see the typological structures from which they emerge.

3. Some types are evidenced from linguistic and/or sequential correspondence.

All valid types must have significant correspondence. The question is, “What makes correspondence significant?” Is the mere Old Testament mention of the color red enough to connect it to the cross and Jesus’s blood? Some think so; I don’t. Instead, there must be something more than a superficial resemblance.

To get concrete, here are two useful tests for discerning types.^[9] The first test is linguistic correspondence, which asks the question: Are there words or phrases shared between the type and antitype? It is possible that different words or terms are being employed, but shared language heightens the correspondence. The second test is sequential correspondence, which looks for a common arrangement of events. Of course, later sequencing could actually reverse an earlier referent, if the author was being ironic. For instance, Jeremiah 4:23–26 reverses the days of creation in order to prove de-creation. Nevertheless, the reversal is the point and one cannot fully understand the prophet’s message without identifying his dependence on Genesis 1.

9. These tests are derived from James M. Hamilton Jr., “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12.4 (2008): 52–77.

Together, these two tests provide a good starting place for identifying types. And more, these tests show the skeptical that types are not a fanciful game that the imaginative play with Scripture. Rather, discovering biblical types and the connections between type and antitype are an exercise of faithful hermeneutics that is always governed by the text.

4. Some types are confirmed by their relationship to biblical covenants.

In addition to linguistic and sequential correspondence, we must also consider the relationship between biblical types and biblical covenants. From one angle, biblical covenants are comprised of multiple types. For instance, in the Sinai covenant, we find a marriage-like covenant at the Mountain of God (Exodus 19–20), where a mediator delivers the law of God to the people of God (Exodus 21–24, 32–34), such that God would be able to dwell with Israel (Exodus 25–40). Without even considering the typology of the redemption (i.e., the Passover, the victory at the Red Sea, water-giving rock, etc.), it is clear that this covenant sets a pattern for others and is itself formed by previous covenants too.

At the same time, biblical types are governed by the covenants in which they are formed. To say it differently, biblical covenants help situate and clarify what is significant about the relationship between the type and its fulfillment. As I have written elsewhere, the faithful interpreter “must show from the text how the type corresponds to its covenantal context.”^[10] Thus, biblical types do not simply escalate from the Old to the New; they escalate by means of biblical covenants. Hence, when students of Scripture begin to learn about types, they must also attend to the various covenants that develop in Scripture.

10. Schrock, “What Designates a Valid Type? A Christotelic, Covenantal Proposal,” Southeastern Theological Review 5.1 (Summer 2014): 5.

5. Some types aren’t types at all but another form of connection.

Finally, while biblical types are resident and repeated throughout the Bible, they are not the only way to move from one testament to the next. In fact, there are numerous ways. Some of these include promise-fulfillment (the prediction of the messiah’s birthplace in Micah 5:2 is fulfilled in Matthew 2:6), analogy (in the Old Testament Israel was called God’s bride; in the New Testament the church becomes the bride of Christ), and example (in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul uses the Old Testament as a moral example). These and other approaches to canonical exegesis are necessary for not making everything a type.

Indeed, the willingness and ability to dismiss a proposed type is what makes an interpreter credible. Truly, the Bible is filled with types and typological structures. But not everything is a type, and careful readers of Scripture will see that and help others to see it too.

Scratching the Surface, Saturating the Soul

All in all, these three characteristics of biblical types, combined with these five “best practices” for discerning a valid type, will help you get into the water of typology. Or better, they will help you swim in the water of God’s Word, an ocean filled with beautiful and challenging types (persons, events, and institutions) that reveal and conceal God’s glory (cf. Matt. 13:10–17).

Still, recognizing types in Scripture is not just a matter of mechanics. Truly, it requires Spiritual illumination (1 John 2:27) and the ongoing renewal of your mind (Rom 12:1–2), not to mention ongoing reading and reading with others. Truly, “seeing the connections” in Scripture is something that takes time and occurs when your soul is saturated with Scripture and your eyes of faith have learned from the apostles that all the promises have found their ‘yes’ and ‘amen’ in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).

Indeed, until we see Christ with our glorified eyes, let us know him more through biblical typology.