Editor’s Note: Before reading this article, it would be beneficial to read Brent Parker’s “The Differences Between Typology and Allegory,” first. Parker mentions a previous iteration of this article.
By what authority does the Apostle Paul declare that Adam, the first man, “was a type of the one who was to come,” namely Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:14)? Did he have “privileged apostolic insight,” some form of “secret knowledge” that enabled him to assert a “radical reinterpretation” of Adam beyond the Old Testament accounts? Did Paul retrospectively recognize some “analogical pattern” of correspondence between Jesus and Adam? Did the apostle engage in “figural reading” or “typological interpretation” of the Old Testament? Are there markers in the Old Testament itself that warrant the apostle’s claim? Can we trace Paul’s reasoning so we can reproduce his explanation of Adam as an ancient type of Christ who came much later? What accounts for competing responses to these questions by biblical scholars? These and other questions are discussed in a personal backstory to these issues. In this article, my objective is to explain why “typological reading” is an awful strategy for reading one’s Bible.
A History of Confusion Concerning Biblical Types
Since ancient times, Christians have been divided over how to recognize and interpret Scripture’s types. Many Christians unknowingly stumble over—and even trample on—valid and substantial biblical types while they latch onto elusive and presumed threads that are little more than sensational distractions. One renowned imaginary type is the blood of Jesus Christ, allegedly represented by Rahab’s “scarlet” cord (Josh. 2:18, 21; 6:22–23). Against this extravagant trend, Bishop Herbert Marsh (1757–1839) pushed hard in the opposite direction by arguing that the only types in the Bible are those so named by the New Testament, which are few. Thankfully, Patrick Fairbairn’s (1805–74) The Typology of Scripture presents correctives to both extremes, offering principles for recognizing typological foreshadows of things to come in Christ, all ordained by God, who embedded them within the Old Testament for our instruction. All would do well to ponder Fairbairn’s two-volume work on the Bible’s types, which features God’s revelation throughout the Old Testament as typological, foreshadowing fulfillment with the coming of Christ Jesus. Instead, now, preachers and teachers who write books on biblical typology largely ignore Fairbairn’s book, offering a mere nod relegated to a footnote. Thus, most contemporary discussions of biblical types focus on interpretation as typological, not revelation.
Continue reading Part 1 of “Typological Reading Versus Typological Writing” at Christ Over All.