Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSac 112:447 (Jul 1955)
Article: The Interpretation of Types
Author: Donald K. Campbell

The Interpretation of Types

Donald K. Campbell

It is a matter of common agreement among conservative Bible students that typology is worthy of investigation as an area of Scriptural truth. It has, in fact, both value and validity. A chief value is to be seen in the fact that a knowledge of typology is essential to an understanding of certain portions of the Word of God. The book of Hebrews is a case in point; for its very purpose is to demonstrate that Christ, the substance or antitype, is better than the shadows or types. Habershon aptly comments, “The Bible may be compared to those beautifully illustrated volumes so often published with a number of engravings of choice pictures at the beginning, followed by chapters of letterpress describing them, giving their history, or telling something of the life of the artist. We can scarcely conceive of anyone trying to understand such descriptions without referring to the pictures themselves; yet this is how the Bible is often treated.”1 Mention should also be made of the apologetic value of typology. The teleological character of Scripture is substantiated thereby; for the relation between type and antitype, as the relation between prophecy and its fulfillment, is unmistakable evidence of divine design.

The validity of typology need not be debated by those who recognize the authority of the Scriptures. It is sufficient to observe that the Greek word τύπος from which the word “type” is derived occurs in its noun form in the New Testament fourteen times. While it is true that not all of these references bespeak a doctrinal sense, some unquestionably do, and these establish beyond question the legitimacy of typology.

BSac 112:447 (Jul 55) p. 249

The Problem

Concerning the value and validity of typology there is, then, virtual agreement among Bible students. Disagreement arises over the problem as to how much of the Old Testament is to be regarded as typical. An easy solution to this problem is not to be found. There are, however, two extremes that should be shunned. The one found early expression in the writings of certain of the Church Fathers. States Moorehead, “Mystery and mysticism were seen everywhere, in the cords and pins of the Tabernacle, in the yield of herds, in the death of one, in the marriage of another, even in the number of fish caught by the disciples on the night the risen Saviour appeared to them—how much some have tried to make of that number, 153!”2 Unrestrained typology of this sort has continued to the present day with the result that the entire subject has been brought into disrepute and conservative theologians have been driven from the field.3 On the other hand, on the part of many there is a complete neglect of typical truths or a grudging recognition of a very limited number of types. The extreme of a fanciful typology that knows no bounds and admits of no regulation is to be rejected. So also is the prejudicial view that brings about an undue contraction of the typical element to be set aside. It is firmly believed that it is possible to steer between these hazardous shoals and maintain a position that will yield sane and spiritual results in this much disputed area. In order to achieve this end the nature of a type must be clearly comprehended and certain principles or rules for their interpretation must be established.

The Definition of a Type

A survey of definitions suggested by other authors will help to simplify and clarify this matter. Frey declares, “Scripture types…are the emblems, which were designed by God to represent and prefigure some great and good t...