In Romans 5:14 Paul states that the first man, Adam, “was a type of the one who was to come,” referring to Jesus. A type is “a person, institution, office, action, or event, by means of which some truth of the Gospel was divinely foreshadowed under the Old Testament dispensations.”1 In order to explain how exactly Adam is a type of Christ, Paul first dismisses several possible parallels between them. First, Adam’s sin resulted in death – a terrible reality to be sure – but Christ’s gift results in life which abounds over death itself (v.15). Secondly, Adam’s sin brought condemnation, while Christ’s gift returns a legal finding of “righteous” (v.16). Thirdly, because of Adam’s transgression death has reigned since the garden, now grace and righteousness reign unto life; a hope which comes through Jesus (v.17).
How, then, does Adam actually parallel Christ, and why is Paul justified in referring to him as a type of the Savior? The answer is numerical: Adam sinned once and the whole of his race was brought to ruin; Jesus performed one righteous act that brought righteousness and life to all men. The nature of the acts themselves could not be more different, neither can their respective impacts. But the fact that it took just one man’s disobedience to make many sinners, and one man’s obedience to make many righteous, is the basis for Paul to say that Adam is a type of the one who was to come, Jesus Christ.
By observing how the apostle builds his argument in this passage, we can get an idea of the nature of biblical typology and its limitations. Bernard Ramm dedicates an entire chapter to the interpretation of types as the first of three categories of what he calls “special hermeneutics.”2 Ramm maintains that these require a method of interpretation of a different sort than the rest of Scripture,3 but it is difficult to see how Paul is using anything other than a normal, literal interpretation here. He recognizes the implications of Adam’s one act of disobedience – death’s disastrous reign over the human race even among those who did not sin in the same way as Adam – because this is what the text of Genesis plainly states. And he describes Jesus’ death as the one act of righteousness which overcomes sin, death, and all judgment, so that the one who receives the free gift will live forever under the glorious reign of God’s grace. This conclusion is not based on a special hermeneutical system but on the plain reading of Jesus’ words in the gospels. He promised that, by his own death and resurrection, he would give eternal life to all who believe. This instance of typology arises naturally from the pages of Scripture when we utilize the very kind of sensible literalism Ramm defended earlier.4
Identifying Biblical Types
Are there any discernible rules for identifying types? Ramm gives three basic elements which he believes are essential: a genuine resemblance between the OT and NT references, the thing being designated as a type, and recognizing that there will be some amount of dissimilarity between them.5 The first goes almost without saying: since a type is an analogy in picture form, there must be some real point or points of comparison. The third is also not very controversial, as all but the most extreme typology maximalist admits there is no such thing as a one-to-one correspondence between OT and NT figures.
But what exactly does it mean for a thing to be designated a type? Does the NT author have to use the Greek word ????? (typos) in order for something to recognized as a type? Ramm identifies various historical schools of thought on this. First, there are the extremes, those who see types everywhere and others who reject them altogether. Between these are two schools of thought. The first is that a thing has to be called a type by the NT author, and the second is that a type may be inferred even where one is not explicitly designated as such. I think we can easily dispense with the two extremes, but we must then choose one of the middle positions.6
It is tempting to say that a thing must be called a type by the NT writer. “This is a very strict principle,” says Ramm, “and was advocated to curtail much of the fanciful and imaginary in typological interpretation.”7 Without this restriction, it is possible to claim that any person, event, artifact, or act in the OT may be a foreshadowing of some NT person or event. We could read the account of Noah’s ark, for example, and claim the wood typifies the cross of Christ, the pitch the Holy Spirit who seals us until the day of our redemption, Noah’s drunkenness the kings of the earth who become drunk on the wine of Babylon the Great, and any other type we can imagine.8 There is a certain sobriety in interpretation when we limit ourselves only to those things which are explicitly identified as types by the biblical writers. There is safety here, too, because it is impossible to mistakenly identify a type, if we stick to those which the apostolic writers identify for us.
Objections to Strictly Limited Typology
Still, there are those who see this as too restrictive and fear that we will miss legitimate types which God means us to see in Scripture. Ramm lists several complaints offered by opponents of the more restrictive view.9 First, they say it is just too artificial – too mechanical – to see only a handful of typological parallels between the Old and New Testaments. Since the word typos is only used some fifteen times in the NT, this would invalidate the vast majority of types which have blessed so many people. Again Ramm quotes Milton Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics: “But we should guard against the extreme position of some writers who declare that nothing in the Old Testament is to be so regarded as typical but what the New Testament affirms to be so.”10 In response to this, I simply ask what makes it “extreme”? This is nothing other than Terry’s opinion, which Ramm clearly affirms, but there are many who take the opposite view. What is the objective basis for calling the strict limitation view extreme? This is nothing more than an emotional appeal.
What evidence is there in Genesis that Adam is a type? Who would even use that term unless Paul did in his letter to the Romans a couple of decades after Jesus’ 1st coming?
Another objection mentioned by Ramm is this limited view arose to correct the errors of the typology maximalist view. He maintains that this is an overreaction which causes us to limit ourselves to “too meagre a field.”11 But again I wonder what is the objective basis for saying that a strict limitation leaves us with not enough typological flesh on the bones. What if the Holy Spirit identified the perfect number of types as types? And who gets to decide what is the correct amount? The same problem arises with Ramm’s other objection that, “The very implication of Hebrews itself is that only a fraction of the great parallels between the two Covenants is considered, and that it is left to our Christian maturity to draw the other parallels.”12 This is just Ramm’s opinion. He trots out the book of Hebrews as a proof text – a popular one in this case, to be sure – but he offers no argument. One would like to see some evidence from the actual text of Hebrews, but then we would be heading back toward the limited typology view which Ramm is objecting to. It seems self-defeating to me.
One more objection is that we do not have to wait for a prophecy to be fulfilled in order to identify it as a prophecy, so we should not have to wait for the antitype in order to identify a type.13 First of all, this presupposes that typology is a form or subset of prophecy; something which Ramm states directly: “Thus a type is a species of prophecy and should be included under prophetic studies. Typological interpretation is thereby justified because it is part of prophecy, the very nature of which establishes the nexus between the two Testaments.”14 But let’s just think about this in the case of Adam and Jesus. What evidence is there in Genesis that Adam is a type? Who would even use that term unless Paul did in his letter to the Romans a couple of decades after Jesus’ 1st coming? In what sense is the account of Adam prophetic? Without pointing to Jesus, the antitype, can anyone convincingly argue that Adam’s sin was identified as foreshadowing Messiah’s obedience? Yet that is precisely the parallel on which Paul based his identification of Adam as a type of Christ. It just doesn’t seem possible for a type to be prophetic in this way, as it can only be understood to be a type by looking backward from the antitype.
And when it comes to identifying prophecies Ramm is correct to say that we do not wait for the fulfillment to know it is a prophecy. But prophecies are often identified explicitly by some kind of formula. Many prophecies include language such as “in the latter days” (cf. Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Isaiah 2:2; Jer. 49:39), “in that day” (cf. Is. 2:20; 4:1-2; Ezek. 29:21), “the burden of the word of the LORD” (cf. Zech. 9:1; 12:1; Mal. 1:1), or even “the words of this prophecy” or “the words of the prophecy of this book” (cf. Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19). If only the biblical writers could identify a type as explicitly as they did their prophecies, then maybe we would be able to identify them. This, of course, is exactly the limitation which Ramm and so many others reject.
Finally, Ramm objects to the strict limitation by noting that the NT identifies the Tabernacle and the wilderness journeys themselves as types (cf. Heb. 8 and 1 Cor. 10, respectively). In both cases the NT writer indicates that the whole is typical, therefore, Ramm believes that the parts must also be typical. This would mean that we can and should identify as types the various components of the Tabernacle along with its furnishings. We can do the same with the Israel’s experiences in their 40-year journey from Egypt to Canaan. One obvious question is just how far can this principle be taken? Should we recognize some typological function of the twenty pillars and twenty sockets of bronze for the court of the tabernacle with hooks and bands of silver (cf. Ex. 27:10)? What is the typological nature of Miriam’s leprosy, which she received in judgment for speaking evil of Moses? And what of her miraculous healing? Are there any limits to the elements of these two which can be called types? And furthermore, does the presence of these two types give us liberty to find other composite types in Scripture which are not explicitly identified as such? This is all very subjective.
There is a final objection. “The avoidance of extravagances in typology is not to be accomplished by narrowing typology mercilessly to a small field, but by establishing typology from an empirical investigation of Scriptures themselves.”15 To this I say, “Amen!” Empirical evidence of a type and its antitype is all that the more restrictive view demands. Objectivity in Bible interpretation requires evidence that can be seen and understood by all.
1Terry, Milton, Biblical Hermeneutics: a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New testaments (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1890), 246.
2Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), 215. These include Hebrew poetry, figurative language, parables, allegories, proverbs, types, symbols, dreams, prophecy, OT quotations in the NT, accommodation, the analogy of faith, and the doctrinal and practical use of the Bible.
3It is commonly assumed that these and other types of literature found in the Bible require different methods than a standard literary hermeneutic. How someone comes to this conclusion and whether it is indeed necessary are beyond the scope of this article.
4https://ebcelkhorn.com/sensible-literalism/
5Ibid., 228.
6The typology maximalist is one who imagines that there is a type of Christ behind every OT bush. This turns the Old Testament into basically an allegory and makes interpretation completely subjective. On the other hand, the NT explicitly identifies certain things as types, so we can’t reject typology altogether.
7Ibid., 219.
8The Roman Catholic Church relies heavily on typology in order to support and defend its unique doctrines. For example, they claim that Eve is a type of Mary since she listened to the serpent and sin entered the world, while Mary listened to the angel and brought salvation into the world.
9Ibid., 220.
10Terry, 255-256, quoted in Ramm, 220.
11Ramm, 220.
12Ibid., 220-221.
13Antitype refers to the person or thing to which the type itself is pointing. In the case of Romans 5, Adam is the type and Jesus the antitype.
14Ibid., 216.
15Ibid., 221.