8. Τύπος
occurs in Heb 8:5 and Acts 7:44, just as also ἀντίτυπος in Heb 9:24 and 1 Pet 3:21, in an
expressly hermeneutical and technical sense that calls for so-called
typological exegesis.
The following differentiation seems in order:
First, “typology” as traditio-historical hermeneutics is at work
whenever a historically new, usually eschatological institution of salvation
and judgment is expressed in terms of a temporally preceding institution. Since
the older is thus surpassed by what is eschatologically newer, or is critically
or antithetically suspended by the latter, it thus appears as a superseded
prefiguration of the newer. Typology that is synthetic and oriented to
salvation history develops secondarily relative to typology that is defined
more as antithesis to what precedes. The former is then continued in a certain
way in “figural interpretation” (cf. Auerbach). The lack of strict
differentiation between “typological” interpretation on the one hand, and
correspondence between prediction and fulfillment conceived from the
perspective of salvation history on the other, impairs a great many assertions
made concerning the subject of typology. Despite Bultmann’s misconception of
typology as an unhistorical and mythological thought structure that simply
repeats similar elements, his criticism of Goppelt’s inflationary expansion of
typological elements within the NT is appropriate.
Second, the apocalyptic understanding of history can alter typology
such that an eschatological event can appear to have been prefigured from the
very beginning. It thus enjoys both temporal and objective priority over
against its corresponding counterpart (cf., e.g., 2 Bar. 4:1-7).
Third, in Hellenistic Judaism, esp. in Philo, we encounter the
speculative cosmological idea that the world of tangible, earthly things was
created as a copy of its prototype. Philo Op.
16, 19, 36 is exemplary: At creation God first formed the ἀρχέτυπος and the νοητὴ ἰδέα, and the tangible, earthly creation was
then produced as a copy of this τύπος or παράδειγμα
— an activity, however, comprehensible only to the Spirit. See also Philo Som. i.206 on Exod 25:40: The divine
prototype of the tabernacle became visible to Moses in the Spirit as τύπος or παράδειγμα; only then, and according to this model, did Bezalel produce an
imitation or copy (μίμημα
or σκιά), namely, the
tangible, earthly tabernacle itself. In textual exegesis τύπος refers to what actually should be shown
and what should be disclosed in its hidden meaning through allegory (Philo Op. 157).
a) In Hebrews this Hellenistically conceived relationship between the
“perfect heavenly prototype” and the “earthly copy and shadow” is clearly
transferred into the historical dimension of the eschatological Christ-event;
in the process, the conscious use of the (exegetically acquired) key term τύπος produces a “typological interpretation”
of the OT in the technical hermeneutical sense. Its conception should thus
probably be sought in this early Christian formation within the tradition,
represented by the letter to the Hebrews, and not in Paul.
In a “typological” understanding of Exod 25:40, Heb 8:5 characterizes
priestly service in the old covenant by asserting that those priests “serve a
copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect
the tabernacle, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything
according to the pattern that was
shown you on the mountain.’.”
Within the LXX citation, as in Acts 7:44, τύπος is the translation of Heb. taḇnîṯ (building plan, model, picture)
and is not used elsewhere in the letter to the Hebrews. Yet in Heb 10:1 εἰκών occurs in the same way as in 8:5 opposite
an OT σκιά (“the law has but a
shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these things”).
9:23f., initially recalling the ratification of the OT covenant with blood (vv.
15–22), speaks of the “copies (ὑποδείγματα) of the heavenly things”; immediately thereafter, however, the
expression ἀντίτυπος, “antitype,”
occurs, which also acquires a technical meaning and here parallels ὑπόδειγμα. This term emphasizes the contrast
between the sanctuary (or cultic objects?) of the old covenant on the one hand,
and the true sanctuary on the other: “For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary
made with hands, an antitype of the
true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our
behalf.”
In Hebrews this scheme of correspondence between heavenly prototype
and earthly copy is clearly a consciously chosen hermeneutical device, though
not in the service of any “vertically” conceived cosmological doctrine of
salvation. The correspondence, rather, has a typological function: The
eschatologically unsurpassable, one-time sacrifice of the true high priest and
mediator is realized in the event of Jesus’ death occurring even now, which
therefore suspends once and for all the OT institutions of dispensing
salvation. This suspension turns those very institutions into their own
linguistic “copies” and historical “shadows.”
b) 1 Pet 3:21 uses ἀντίτυπος in what appears to be an already familiar typological sense. Mediated
through the idea that Christ preaches salvation to the dead (v. 19), Noah’s
deliverance through water (the flood) appears as an event against which saving
baptism is thrown into relief for the reader as an antitype, perhaps intended
as a warning. Although the idea of correspondence hinges here on that of water,
neither the linguistic relationships nor the train of thought is wholly
transparent. In v. 21a, ὅ
hardly refers to the act of deliverance, but rather to the water, “in
correspondence to which as an antitype
baptism now delivers you as well.” Cf. also 2
Clem. 14:3: Christ’s flesh (the Church) is the ἀντίτυπος (“representative”) of the Spirit, which
is αὐθεντικόν.
9. In two usages, τύπος in writings after the NT seems to be a virtually fixed concept.
a) Τύπος
is the earthly copy of a heavenly model: superiors as a copy of God (Did. 4:11; Barn. 19:7), the bishop as copy of the Father (or of God; Ign. Trall. 3:1). A variation of this usage
is “essential image” (Barn. 6:11).
The term is then transferred to visionary images of apocalyptic realities (Herm. Vis. iii.11.4; iv.1.1; iv.2.5; iv.3.6; Sim. ii.2.
b) Τύπος
is an OT prefiguration of events and circumstances realized in the salvation
history of Jesus Christ; this is excessively the case in Barn. 7:3, 7, 10, 11; 12:2, 5, 6, 10; 13:5. The same sense appears
in Justin Dial. 42.4 (cf. 90.2),
where one after another of Moses’ instructions are presented as τύπους καὶ σύμβολα καὶ καταγγελίας of the future Christ-events. (Gerd
Schunack, “τυπος, ου, ο,”
in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and
Gerhard Schneider, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–], 3:375-76)
