The New Testament typology reveals certain
characteristics. (1) Unlike allegory, it is firmly grounded in history. The “type”
always has its own historical value, although its real significance is typologically
revealed in the “anti-type” or fulfillment. (2) it is derived mostly from the
creation or from the covenant with Israel. For example, the creation is clearly
in view when Adam is presented as “a type of the one to come” and the age to
come is described in terms of Paradise or of a new creation. The covenant is,
however, in the background when the persons, events, and institutions of the
Exodus are compared to or contrasted with the New Testament realities. Ellis
points out, however, that since the “new covenant” associated with Jesus’ death
is closely related to the new creation associated with his resurrection, these “two
typologies may be closely intertwined.” (Ellis, Old Testament, 107-08)
An Old Testament type stands not only in positive correspondence but also in
contrast to the New Testament reality. For example, Adam stands in
correspondence to Christ in both being the “son of God” and the head of the
race. In contrast, however, Adam brings sin and death to all men while Christ
brings righteousness and eternal life. Likewise, while the Abrahamic covenant
stands in continuity with the “new covenant,” the “old covenant” of Sinai
stands in contrast. Thus, the ritual law from Sinai were only “a shadow of what
was to come (σκια των μελλοντων).” The Exodus
“Passover lamb” was a type of Jesus who in his sacrificial death brought the “old
covenant” of Sinai to its end (or fulfillment) restore the type, but often
intensifies and escalates its meaning. For the New Testament writers,
therefore, Christ is not simply a new prophet, priest, or king, but one greater
than Jonah, the temple, and Solomon. (Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, Corporate
Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and
Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background [Rome: Pontificio
Instituto Biblico, 2001], 40-42)
