“(1) Typology is not just a matter of Old Testament to New Testament relationships as noted above. It occurs from one part of the Old Testament to another and from the Old Testament to later Jewish literature. This is grounded in observations about God’s consistency in working out his purposes across human history.
(2) Typology is not limited to features of Christology and soteriology, although these are common topics. For example, judgment of the ungodly, opposition to God’s ways, and human character traits are some of the patterns that appear (only negatively related to soteriology) [Note 102: “See comments on Balaam (2:14–15), Jezebel (2:20), the Euphrates (9:14; 16:12), Armageddon (16:16–18). Also Elliott, Survivors, 387–92, and various OT examples in 2 Pet and Jude.”]
(3) Typology does not necessitate a metaphysical shift from physical, geographic, or historic entities in the Old Testament type to spiritual and eternal realities in the New Testament antitype. Sometimes the typological escalation works this way, but it is not necessary for it to do so. For example, the typology of sacrifice in Hebrews and elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 5:7) did not mean that Christ offered himself only spiritually or only in the heavenly realms to deal with sin. He experienced real physical suffering, death, and resurrection in time and space, even though his sacrifice was God’s full and final provision for sin and provides spiritual, eternal blessings for the redeemed. [Note 103: “See comments on this issue at Rev 6:16–17; cf. Blaising, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 85–87.”]
(4) Typology does not necessitate the abrogation of the type in favor of the antitype. Abrogation is the case in one notable example that is sometimes cited (animal sacrifices as a type of Christ’s sacrifice; Heb 9–10). But to take another instance from Hebrews, Adam’s role as God’s image bearer and ruler over creation (Gen 1; Ps 8) is not revoked for humankind but renewed and restored by Christ (Heb 2; cf. Rev 2:26–27; 20:4, 6; 22:5).[Note 104: “See Bock, “Summary Essay” [in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond], 293–94; see also commentary on 1:6; 5:10; 7:8; 21:3.”]
(5) The future counterpart or antitype may not be limited to a single, climactic exemplar, although this is often the case. It is also possible for an Old Testament pattern to find more than one future replication on the way to its ultimate fulfillment. Either way it involves “progression toward a final goal” in God’s design for history. Beale gives the illustration of Noah (Gen 9:1–2, 7) as an intermediate antitype of Adam (Gen 1:26–28), pointing ultimately to Christ. In the same place he cites day of the Lord prophecies that have a near-term fulfillment as well as an eschatological one. [Note 106: “Beale, Handbook, 16–17; Bock, “Summary Essay” [in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond], 294–95.”] The same can be said of the use in Revelation of Babylon (the ancient empire pointing to Rome and on to an end-time power opposed to God) or of the “beast” that exalts itself against God, desecrates the temple, and oppresses God’s people (Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome in AD 70, and a future antichrist).”
Buist Fanning, Revelation, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 47–48.
Leave a Reply