The Epistles to the Hebrews

136  The Ep i s t l e to the Hebrews : Par t I

Typology, continued

Further, one should study the specific correspondences as well as the differences between type and antitype. Here typology is similar to parable research, necessitating a consideration of exegetical details in both OT and NT passages. In what way, e.g., was the brazen serpent a type of Jesus’ death in John 3:14-15? Were the peripheral details of Num. 21:4-9 part of the typology? There will always be a single central point, and secondary details must be noted with care before they are applied to the analogy. Noting the dissimilarities provides a control against an overly imaginative, allegorical rendering of the type. It is well to avoid dogmatizing types. It is difficult and extremely subjective to establish doctrine on the basis of typology. Even in Heb., typology is utilized for illustrative effect rather than for dogmatic considerations. Therefore, only when typology has a direct doctrinal purpose may we affirm such. Finally, one must not seek types where the context does not warrant them. As in all exegetical study, we want to arrive at the author’s intended meaning rather than a generalized subjective interpretation. As stated above, while the NT writers undoubtedly used typology that is not recorded in canon, we do not have the revelatory stance Bibliography E. Achtemeier. IDB Supplement, 926-27; D.L. Baker, “Typology and the Christian Use of the OT,” SJT 29:137-57; E.C. Blackman, “Return to Typology,” CongQ 32:53-59; J.W. Drane, “Typology,” EvQ 50:195-210; E.E. Ellis, “How the NT Uses the Old,” in NT Interpretation , ed. I H. Marshall; A.M. Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture ; F. Foulkes, The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the OT ; L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the NT and TDNT , VIII, 246-59; S. Gundry, “Typology as a Means of Interpretation,” JETS 12:233-40; H. Hammel, “The OT Basis of Typological Interpretation,” BR 9:38-50; G.H. Lampe and K.J. Woolcombe, Essays on Typology ; R.B. Laurin, “Typological Interpretation of the OT,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology , ed. R. Turnbull; H. Muller, NIDNTT , III 903-7; N. H. Ridderbos, “Typology,” VoxT 31:149-50; J. Stek, “Biblical Typology: Yesterday and Today,” CTJ 5:133-62. necessary to extend that approach beyond the text itself. The allegorical, subjective results seen in many modern sermons testify eloquently to the dangers. - G.R. Osborne