No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
It is necessary first of all to consider what is meant by the word ‘typology’. There is a world of difference between the use of τ⋯πoς (‘type’) in the Bible and many of the fanciful interpretations which were called ‘types’ in the early Church, or between the use of typology in modern biblical scholarship and in modern church life. Two main conceptions of typology are to be found today. Recently a number of biblical scholars, notably Gerhard von Rad, have used the term to describe the interpretation of history involved in the ‘promise-fulfilment’ approach to the relationship between the Testaments. Alongside this there are those who perpetuate fanciful kinds of biblical interpretation closely related to allegory and symbolism, referring to them as typology. The place of typology in the Christian use of the Old Testament depends entirely therefore on what is meant by the word.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1976
References
page 137 note 1 By no means all the early Church's interpretation was fanciful; cf. Daniélou, J., From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (ET: London, 1960; French, 1950).Google Scholar
page 137 note 2 E.g. Irwin, W. A., ‘The Interpretation of the Old Testament’, ZAW 62(1949–1950), pp. 1–10Google Scholar and ‘A Still Small Voice … Said, What are You Doing Here?’, JBL 78(1959), pp. 1–12Google Scholar; Baumgärtel, F., Verheissung: Zur Frage des cvangelischen Verständnisses des Alien Testaments (Gütersloh, 1952), pp. 138–143Google Scholar and ‘The Hermeneutical Problem of the Old Testament’, ET in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (EOTI; ed. C. Westermann; ET: London, 1963), pp. 143–4 (German: TLZ 79 (1954)); Smart, J.D., The Interpretation of Scripture (London, 1961), pp. 129–133Google Scholar; Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (London, 1966), pp. 103–148Google Scholar; Fohrer, G., ‘Das Alte Testament unddas Thema “Christologie”’, EvTh 30(1970), pp. 293–294.Google Scholar
page 137 note 3 Phythian-Adams, W. J., The Way of At-one-ment: Studies in Biblical Theology (London, 1944), p. 11Google Scholar; followed by Hebert, A. G., The Authority of the Old Testament (London, 1947), pp. 218–222.Google Scholar
page 137 note 4 So Barth, according to Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture, pp. 125–9; cf. von Balthasar, H. U., Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deulung seiner Theologie (Cologne, 1951), pp. 93–181Google Scholar; Pannenberg, W., ‘Zur Bedeutung des Analogiegedankens bei Karl Barth’, TLZ 78(1953), pp. 17–24Google Scholar; Pöhlmann, H. G., Analogia entis oder Analogia fidei? Die Frage der Analogie bei Karl Barth (Göttingen, 1965)Google Scholar. See also von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology, II(ET: Edinburgh, 1965; German: 1960), pp. 363–364Google Scholar; Wolff, H. W., ‘The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament’, ET in EOTI (German: EvTh 16(1956)), pp. 167–181.Google Scholar
page 138 note 1 Rowley, H. H., The Unity of the Bible (London, 1953), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
page 138 note 2 Hanson, A. T., Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London, 1965), p. 162.Google Scholar
page 138 note 3 cf. Wolff's defence of the retention of the term ‘typology’: EOTI, p. 181n. Also, von Rad, G., ‘Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament’, ET in EOTI (German: EvTh 12(1952–1953)), pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
page 138 note 4 Fritsch, C. T., ‘Biblical Typology: IV: Principles of Biblical Typology’, BS 104(1947), p. 214Google Scholar. Cf. Lambert, J. C., ‘Type’, HDAC II(1918), p. 623Google Scholar; Goppelt, L., Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Gütersloh, 1939, reprinted Darmstadt, 1969), pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Moorehead, W. G., ‘Type’, ISBE(1939), p. 3029Google Scholar; Amsler, S., ‘Où en est la typologie de l'Ancien Testament?’, ETR 27 (1952), p. 80Google Scholar and ‘Prophétie et typologie’, RThPh 3(1953), p. 139.
page 139 note 1 Lampe, G. W. H., ‘Typological Exegesis’, Theology 56(1953), p. 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Ellison, H. L., ‘Typology’, EQ 25(1953), p. 161Google Scholar; Woollcombe, K. J. in Essays on Typology (by G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, London, 1957), pp. 39–40Google Scholar; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, pp. 272, 329, et al.; Wolff, H. W., ‘The Understanding of History in the Old Testament Prophets’, ET in EOTI (German: EvTh 20(1960)), p. 344Google Scholar; Mickelsen, A. B., Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1963), p. 237Google Scholar; France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament (London, 1971), p. 40.Google ScholarStek, J. H. (‘Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today’, CTJ 5(1970), pp. 133–162Google Scholar) contrasts the use of ‘typology’ in Patrick Fairbairn's The Typology of Scripture: Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of Divine Dispensations (Edinburgh, 18633, 18705) and in volume two of Gerhard von Rad's Old Testament Theology. The former he characterises as ‘a divine pedagogical instrument for progressive revelation of a system of spiritual truths about heavenly and earthly realities’ and the latter as ‘a useful theological method by which men appropriate for themselves and proclaim to others their experiences of the self-revelation of God in history’.
page 139 note 2 It is true that these definitions, like the term ‘typology’ itself, are theological rather than biblical (cf. Lambert, HDAC, II, p. 623), but the Bible's general lack of abstraction makes this inevitable (cf. Hummel, H. D., ‘The Old Testament Basis of Typological Interpretation’, BR 9(1964), p. 40).Google Scholar
page 139 note 3 See Amsler, ETR 27, pp. 80–1; Eichrodt, W., ‘Is Typological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?’, ET in EOTI (German: SVT 4, 1957), pp. 234–235Google Scholar; Lampe in Essays on Typology, pp. 26–7; Anderson, B. W., ‘Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah’ in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W.; London, 1962), pp. 177–195Google Scholar; cf. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture, pp. 102–3.
page 140 note 1 Eichrodt, W., Theology of the Old Testament, II (ET: London, 1967; German: 1964 5, 1935–1991). PP. 227–228, cf. p. 244.Google Scholar
page 140 note 2 Von Rad, , Old Testament Theology, I (ET: Edinburgh, 1962; German: 1957), pp. 294–295; cf. Eichrodt, EOTI, p. 235.Google Scholar
page 140 note 3 Von Rad, , Old Testament Theology, I, p. 282.Google Scholar
page 140 note 4 Foulkes, F., The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament (London, 1958), p. 7.Google Scholar
page 140 note 5 Hummel, BR 9, pp. 38–50 (quote is from p. 40).
page 140 note 6 ibid., p. 47.
page 141 note 1 Goppelt, L., Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Gütersloh, 1939)Google Scholar. He has also written two important articles: ‘Apokalyptik und Typologie bei Paulus’, TLZ 89(1964), pp. 321–344Google Scholar, reprinted as appendix to the reissue of Typos (Darmstadt 1969); ‘τ⋯πoς’, TDNT 8 (ET: 1972; German: 1969), pp. 246–59.
page 141 note 2 Goppelt, Typos, pp. 239–49. Cf. Richardson, A., Christian Apologetics (London, 1947), pp. 190–191Google Scholar; Grant, R. M., The Bible in the Church: A Short History of Interpretation (New York, 1948), pp. 31–42Google Scholar; Wright, G. E., God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London, 1952), p. 61. Contrast Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, pp.8, 172–7.Google Scholar
page 142 note 1 Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 126–135Google Scholar; Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, pp. 39–69, 75; Amsler, S., L'Ancien Testament dans l'Église (Neuchâtel, 1960), esp. pp. 141–147, 215–27Google Scholar; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 38–80 and ‘“In all the Scriptures”—a Study of Jesus' Typology’, TSFB 56 (Spring, 1970), pp. 13–16.
page 142 note 2 Wolff, EOTI, pp. 167–81.
page 142 note 3 K. H. Miskotte considers that there are two sequels to the Old Testament: the New Testament and the Talmud. Neither Jews nor Christians alone are Israel but together they form one congregation of God (When the Gods are Silent (ET: London, 1967; Dutch: 1956; revd. German edn: 1963), pp. 77–8, 165–7).
page 143 note 1 Wolff, EOTI, p. 174.
page 143 note 2 ibid., pp. 179–80.
page 143 note 3 ibid., p. 180; cf. Davidson, A. B., Old Testament Prophecy (ed. Paterson, J. A.; Edinburgh, 1903), pp. 239–240.Google Scholar
page 146 note 1 The only exception is Heb. 6.6. where the meaning of παραδειγματ⋯ζω is ‘to hold up to contempt’.
page 146 note 2 It is sometimes thought that the word τ⋯πoς has a technical sense in 1 Cor. 10.6 (cf. V.II) and Rom. 5.14 (e.g. Goppelt, TDNT 8, pp. 251–3). However, translators generally agree that the meaning is ‘foreshadow’ (NEB), ‘prefigure’ (JB) or ‘pattern’ (NIV) in Rom. 5.14 and ‘example’ (NIV) or ‘warning’ (RSV, JB) in 1 Cor. 10.6, 11. In both cases the usual biblical meaning ‘example, pattern’ is entirely appropriate and it is unnecessary to suggest a technical use. It is presumably to prevent any implication of a technical term that the English versions avoid the translation ‘type’ for τ⋯πoς.
page 146 note 3 As von Rad points out (EOTI, pp. 17–18 and Old Testament Theology, II, p. 364). Contrast Bultmann, R. (‘Ursprung und Sinn der Typologie als hermeneutische Methode’, TLZ 75(1950), PP. 205–212Google Scholar) who rejects typology because it is based on the idea of repetition. According to him this is derived from the cyclic view of history of the ancient Near East and classical Greece, whereas, the Old Testament has a linear view of history, a history whose course is divinely-directed and moves toward a definite conclusion. Von Rad disputes the validity of this view (EOTI, p. 20).
page 147 note 1 Trench, R. C., Notes on the Parables of our Lord (London, 1870 11; first edn c. 1850), pp. 12–14Google Scholar; cf. Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (revd ednLondon, 1961; 19351). P. 20.Google Scholar
page 147 note 2 Lampe, Theology 56, p. 201. Cf. Fritsch, C. T., ‘Biblical Typology: I: New Trends in Old Testament Theology’, BS 103(1946), p. 293Google Scholar; Marcus, R. A., ‘Presuppositions of the Typological Approach to Scripture’, CQR 158(1957), p. 448; Wolff, EOTI, p. 344n.; Hummel, BR 9, p. 41.Google Scholar
page 147 note 3 On this distinction see Hummel, BR 9, p. 39; Fritsch, C. T., ‘ΤΟ ΆΝΤΙΤϓΠΟΝ’ in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen dedicata (Wageningen, 1966), pp. 100–107.Google Scholar
page 149 note 1 See, e.g., Goppelt, Typos, pp. 19–20; Amsler, , ETR 27, pp. 77–79Google Scholar; von Rad, EOTI, pp. 37–8; Wolff, H. W., ‘The Old Testament in Controversy: Interpretive Principles and Illustration’, ET in Interpn 12(1958), p. 285 (German of section ‘On the Method of Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament’ originally in ZdZ 10(1956)); France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 41–2. Contrast Woollcombe, in Essays on Typology, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
page 149 note 2 See, e.g., Amsler, , RThPh 3, pp. 139–148Google Scholar; Wolff, , EOTI, pp. 188–189Google Scholar; Eichrodt, EOTI, p. 229; Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, pp. 41–2.
page 150 note 1 See, e.g., Goppelt, , Typos, p. 19Google Scholar; Richardson, Christian Apologetics, pp. 189–90; Florovsky, G., ‘Revelation and Interpretation’ in Biblical Authority for Today (ed. Richardson, A. and Schweitzer, W.; London, 1951), pp. 173–176Google Scholar; Amsler, , ETR 27, p. 77Google Scholar; Eichrodt, EOTI, pp. 227–8; Lampe, Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, pp. 29–35, 40–42; Nixon, R. E., The Exodus in the New Testament (London, 1963), p. 11Google Scholar; Lys, D., The Meaning of the Old Testament: An Essay on Hermeneutics (Nashville/New York, 1967), pp. 54–75.Google Scholar
page 150 note 2 Quoted by Goppelt, Typos, p. 8 and translated by Wright, God Who Acts, p. 61.
page 150 note 3 Barr (Old and New in Interpretation, 103–11) denies the validity of the distinction; Jewett, P. K. (‘Concerning the Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture’, WTJ 17(1954–1955), PP. 1–20Google Scholar) thinks they are much the same thing; and Bright (The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 79–80) points out that it is difficult to distinguish between the two in the Fathers. But none have really gainsaid the fundamental distinction that typology is generally historical whereas allegory is fanciful.
page 150 note 4 Goppelt, , Typos, p. 19.Google Scholar
page 150 note 5 ibid., pp. 243–4; Eichrodt, , EOTI, pp. 229–231Google Scholar; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 76–7; cf. Amsler, L'Ancien Testament dans l'Église, pp. 141, 144.
page 151 note 1 Goppelt, Typos, pp. 18–19; Moorehead, ISBE, p. 3029; Fritsch, BS 104, p. 214; Berkhof, L., Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Sacred Hermeneutics) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950), p. 145Google Scholar; Amsler, , ETR 27, p. 79.Google Scholar
page 151 note 2 Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, p. 237; cf. Calmet, A., ‘Type’ in Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible (London, 1837 6), II, p. 769.Google Scholar
page 151 note 3 Moorehead, , ISBE, pp. 3029–3030Google Scholar; Amsler, ETR 27, p. 81; cf. Eichrodt, EOTI, p. 244.
page 151 note 4 Wright, , God Who Acts, p. 66.Google Scholar
page 151 note 5 Fritsch, BS 104, p. 220.
page 151 note 6 Von Rad, EOTI, p. 36; cf. Sailer, J., ‘ÜUber Typen im Neuen Testament’, ZKT 69(1947), pp. 490–496.Google Scholar
page 151 note 7 Amsler, ETR 27, pp. 79–80 and L'Ancien Testament dans l'Église, pp. 144–5.
page 151 note 8 Fritsch, BS 104, pp. 220–21; Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, p. 75; Payne, J. B., The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1962), pp. 357–358.Google Scholar
page 151 note 9 cf. van Ruler, A. A., The Christian Church and the Old Testament (ET: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966; reissued: 1971; German: 1955), pp. 62–73Google Scholar; Verhoef, P. A., ‘Some Notes on Typological Exegesis’ in New Light on Some Old Testament Problems: Papers read at 5th Meeting of Die O.T. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Pretoria, 1962), p. 63.Google Scholar
page 152 note 1 Moorehead, ISBE, p. 3029; Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p. 145; cf. von Rad, EOTI, p. 36.
page 152 note 2 Von Rad, , Old Testament Theology, II, p. 384Google Scholar; Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 92–3; Lys, The Meaning of the Old Testament, p. 71.
page 152 note 3 Steigerung (Goppelt, Typos, pp. 19, 244).
page 152 note 4 Davidson, , Old Testament Prophecy, p. 240Google Scholar; Amsler, , L'Ancien Testament dans l'Église, pp. 145–147Google Scholar; Verhoef in New Light on Some Old Testament Problems, p. 64; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 78–9; cf. von Rad, EOTI, p. 37.
page 152 note 5 Amsler, , ETR 27, p. 80.Google Scholar
page 152 note 6 Goppelt, , Typos, p. 18Google Scholar; Florovsky in Biblical Authority for Today, p. 175; Amsler, , ETR 27, p. 80Google Scholar; Lampe, G. W. H., Theology 56, p. 202Google Scholar and ‘Hermeneutics and Typology’, LQHR 190(1965), p. 24Google Scholar; Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, p. 75; Wolff, EOTI, p. 344; cf. von Rad, EOTI, pp. 36–7. Barr (Old and Mew in Interpretation, pp. 103–48) rejects the attempt to rehabilitate typology on a historical basis.
page 153 note 1 cf. Amsler, ETR 27, p. 78; but contrast Gundry, S. N., ‘Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present’, BETS 12(1969), pp. 233–240Google Scholar. The question may be raised whether Jonah or Job, for instance, must be historical in order to be typical. It may be suggested that although typology is essentially historical it is possible to have correspondences between an imaginary person and a real person. Even if such a type is somewhat artificial it could still have educative value. There is undoubtedly a correspondence between Hamlet or Macbeth and real people: the significance of these characters is not lessened by the fact that they are merely fictional. Likewise, whether or not they ever lived, there remains a fundamental correspondence between the lives of Jonah and Job as portrayed in the biblical story and those of Christians.
page 153 note 2 Berkhof, , Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p. 145Google Scholar; Amsler, ETR 27, p. 79; Woollcombe in Essays on Typology, p. 75; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 40–41; Hasel, G. F., Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar
page 154 note 1 I Clement, 12; Justin, Dialogue, 86.
page 154 note 2 cf. Grant, The Bible in the Church, pp. 52, 72.
page 155 note 1 Von Rad, EOTI, p. 38.
page 155 note 2 Wolff, EOTI, pp. 181–199.
page 157 note 1 Additional evidence to support the case advanced here, which has come to hand since the present article was written, is given by: Röhr, H., ’Buddhismus und Christentum: Untersuchung zur Typologie zweier Weltreligionen, ZRG 25 (1973), pp. 289–303Google Scholar; Bozzo, E. G., ‘Jesus as a Paradigm for Personal Life’, JES 11 (1974), pp. 45–63Google Scholar; Uhlig, S., ‘Die Typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon’, AUSS 12(1974). PP. 112–125.Google Scholar