Four Approaches to Typology in Scripture

1. There is never a warrant to read the Bible typologically
2. The only warrant to read the Bible typologically is in those places where the Bible seems to explicitly identify something as a type
3. In addition to explicit types, there is a warrant to infer types in the Bible according to reasonable and objective rules of hermeneutics [1]
4. In addition to explicit types, there is a warrant to infer types in the Bible according to arbitrary and subjective rules of hermeneutics

Before I give a brief evaluation of each of these approaches, it should be kept in mind that any given thinker or school of thought may not fit neatly into any one of these categories. For instance, one who is extremely strict with approach two may in essence arrive at approach one. Likewise, one who holds to approach three in theory may in practice come closer to approach four. Nevertheless, this division of possibilities is still useful since it provides a clear rubric by which to evaluate particular thinkers or schools of thought. 

Evaluating the Four Approaches

My evaluation will be focused on evangelical approaches — taken in the sense of “bible-believing” Christian — one who believes the Bible is God’s Word and honestly wants to know what it means. Consequently, I will pass quickly over merely rationalistic approaches. 

Approach 1: No Typology

There are few evangelical Christians who defend this approach. Fairbairn blames the “rationalistic spirit” for the view that “discarded the innate, as well as the inferred types of the elder divines.” (16). Vos says the same in Biblical Theology, saying the Rationalists claimed “that all instances of typology in the New Testament are but so many examples of Rabbinical allegorizing exegesis.” (146). However, some who take the second approach to extremes can essentially arrive at this position. Alternatively, this can be done by arbitrarily redefining the meaning of types to suit the given author’s intentions. In other words, it will be granted that the Bible contains types, but these types will be defined in unorthodox ways.  

Since the Bible so explicitly interprets itself typologically in many places (to give an example, in Romans 5:11-12, where Adam is said to be a type of Christ), this approach must be rejected by any bible-believing Christian.

Approach 2: Explicit Typology Only

Admittedly, there is a danger in extravagant and subjective identification of types in the Bible, and since many indulge(d) in this, it is not surprising that this approach of explicit typology only has gained traction with many, if not most, bible-believing Christians today. It seems to be the safest route to go. However, this begs the question, whether God intended for the whole Old Testament to speak of Christ including by types or not. If he did, this route is not safe at all. What is at stake here is the danger of a veil falling over the Old Testament similar to that mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14. Without inferred typology, the connection to Christ of many passages of the Old Testament will be entirely obscured. So, the rebuke of Christ in Luke 24:25-27 will justly apply. For the disciples in that story, there were no explicit types to work with, yet they were rebuked for being foolish and slow of heart for not seeing Christ in all of Scripture, which was the Old Testament for them.

This approach is often called the Marshian school, named after Bishop Marsh (1757-1839). During the 19th Century, this view became predominant in Britain and America (Fairbairn, 19). This was probably due to the general biblicism [2] that was widely accepted in those times and still popular in many circles today. The Marshian view was explicitly continued in the 20th Century in Revised Dispensationalism due to their grammatical-historical hermeneutic (Glenny, 632 and Parker, 152-157; 179).

Approach 3: Implicit and Explicit Typology: Objective Rules

Doubtless, this approach is the safest course of action if executed properly. It follows the example of Jesus Christ in acknowledging that He is the key to all of Scripture as seen in Luke 24:25-27, and then also in the example of the Apostolic writings contained in the rest of the New Testament. However, it does not run with this truth with a zeal without knowledge. Rather, it sets down objective rules of interpretation so the text can be properly exegeted [3].

Two authors of particular note who set down objective rules for the interpretation of types are Patrick Fairbairn and Benjamin Keach. I do not have room to recount these rules here, but I will direct you to where you can find them. Fairbairn gives five rules of interpretation in his book, Typology of Scripture (141-167). For Keach, you may find his nine “Canons or Rules” in his book Tropologia (233-237). 

There are many other authors, both modern and historic, who may not have set down specific rules, but who nevertheless follow the proper rules of exegesis. The best rule being the Analogy of Faith, which simply means interpreting the less clear parts of the Bible by the more clear. In reference to typology, this means looking at the explicit examples of types in the New Testament and determining what internal logic the New Testament author used in identifying that type. So long as we follow that same logic, we will be able to accurately infer many types in the Old Testament not explicitly mentioned in the New. 

Approach 4: Implicit and Explicit Typology: Subjective Rules

Today you will find few if anyone who would defend this approach, and few in history either. However, there still exists the danger of following this approach in practice. It was because of the excesses of those who followed this approach in practice that likely led to the overreaction seen in approach two. Armed only with zeal for finding Christ in all Scripture, we may do great damage. 

Although the proponents of approach one and two will often caricature anyone who infers types as being guilty of subjective interpretation, there are true examples. Fairbairn provides many examples from the Church Fathers in this vein (1-7). However, it should be noted that there is a difference between allegory and typology; nevertheless, the Fathers utilized both. Out of the Reformation there also arose what is called the Cocceian School. On the whole, they were less extravagant than the Fathers, but were not immune to excesses (Fairbairn, 10-14). Keach was in this school, but he, as mentioned above, better approximated approach three. 

There are many ways to subjectively identify types, but there is one rule that is most often employed. This rule is that if there is any apparent resemblance between something in the Old Testament, then it can be correlated to something in the New. Obviously, these interpretations will vary according to the imagination of each thinker.  

Although this approach is indefensible, it does not follow that everyone who is guilty of tending towards this position should be dismissed immediately. Instead, each instance of their typology should be judged on its own merits. Some instances will be poor, but others may be on a better footing. 

Takeaway: The Golden Mean

These four approaches cover all possible approaches to the typology of Scripture. The first two approaches err in being overly cautious, while the last approach goes astray in excess and flights of fancy. Only the third approach, which infers types by objective hermeneutical rules, is truly safe.

---