Typology and the Christian Life

How biblical typology and the Church calendar help us enter into the story of Scripture

“The whole point of Christianity is that it offers a story which is the story of the world.”¹

With this deceptively simple but profound notion, Bishop NT Wright articulates the ambitious and holistic vision of the Christian faith. Part of what this means, I think, is that Christianity helps us discover the meaning of Existence and, more personally, it helps us to discern the purpose of our own existences. Following Jesus helps us makes sense of who we are and why we’re here and this has everything to do with the story the Bible tells.

Because I think this is true, one of the most important dimensions of my work as a pastor is to help God’s people see the world through the story of the Bible. To understand this requires that we see the Bible not just as an old book about a faraway land thousands of years ago but also that we see it as somehow about us right now.

As I hope to show here, the Church calendar helps us to participate in the biblical story. One of the reasons the Church calendar exists is to help us to frame time, to  frame our lives around the storyline of the Scriptures.

To see how it all fits together, I will focus on our current season, the forty days of Lent, through the lens of biblical typology. My hope today is that you’ll not only better understand the Bible but you’ll see how liturgical seasons like Lent helps us to live within the story of the Scriptures.

TYPOLOGY

First, I am going to talk quite a bit about typology, starting with a little background. For the first century of the early church, what we now call the New Testament (NT) was being written. Before that, the Scripture for Jesus, the Scripture for the early church was what we call the Old Testament (OT): Genesis through Malachi.

Now – and I’m painting with broad brush strokes here – as the canon developed and was eventually received and recognized as the Word of God, Christians wrestled with how to understand how the OT and NT fit together. It wasn’t exactly obvious! For example, there were people like Marcion in 2nd century, who argued that the “god” of the OT God is different than the God of the NT. The OT god is angry, violent, and capricious while the God of the NT is loving and gracious.

So, how are we to reconcile the apparent differences between the Old and New Testaments? If the Bible is God’s word, how can they be read together as one cohesive whole?

Here’s how the 4th century bishop and theologian, Augustine of Hippo, answers the question:

In the Old Testament the New is concealed. In the New Testament the Old is revealed.²

This is a pretty good description of typology. What he’s saying is the OT and NT kind of unlock each other. We can’t fully understand one without the other. This is a great summary of how the church has come to understand how the OT and NT are related and how they tell one story.

I’ll say more about this as we dig deeper into typology.

The concept of typology derives from the Greek tupos meaning an example, pattern, or model.³ Typology is about the connection between two related events, people, or symbols. That is, between a “type” and an “antitype.” A type is a past event, person, symbol that foreshadows the antitype. An antitype is the future event, person, symbol that fulfills the type.

The relationship between type and anti-type is a kind of “non-identical repetition.”⁴ The two are similar but different. The type is repeated but not exactly. Figuring out their relationship and, therefore, the meaning is part of the art of interpretation.

I know this can sound super theoretical, so here is one quick example to help you see this. This is perhaps the most famous example where St. Paul frames Adam and Jesus in typological relationship:

Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come…just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. (Romans 5:14, 18)⁵

In Romans 5, Paul describes Adam as a type for Jesus. Adam is a kind of model who prefigures or foreshadows Jesus, the antitype.

What I want to do now continue to sketch this out. In what follows I will show that typology is key to understanding:

1. How the OT tells its story

2. How the NT tells its story

3. How we enter the biblical story liturgically

1. HOW THE OT TELLS ITS STORY

First we see that that typology is one of the ways the OT tells its story. In this section, I will mostly be tracing the thought of Peter Leithart in his A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament.

One of the ways we see typology in the OT is by direct allusion. That is, an OT author explicitly connect two people, events, or symbols. We see this, for example, in the parallels between Noah and Moses. The Book of Exodus begins with the Pharoah who did not know Joseph feeling threatened by the massive number of Israelites in Egypt. To neutralize the threat, he attempted to murder all the newborn Israelite boys.

Moses was born in the midst of this attempted infanticide and his mom protected him by stashing him in a papyrus basket. In Hebrew, Moses was placed in a papyrus tevah. This word can also translated as “ark” and, as you can see below, it is the very same word for Noah’s boat in Genesis 6-8.

Make yourself an ark (tevah) of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:14)

When she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket (tevah) for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river. (Exodus 2:3)

There is a clear typological relationship between Noah (type) and Moses (antitype). The allusion is not just literary flourish. Instead, it tells us something about how we are to understand Moses and his ministry in light of Noah.

So, what does this typology tell us about the life and ministry of Moses? Leithart points out two things.⁶ First, Moses, like Noah, will pass through waters unharmed – as an infant and as adult. Second, Moses, like Noah, will be God’s chosen instrument of destroying old world (sinful humanity/Egypt) and starting a new creation (Noah’s line/Israel).

One way we see typology in the OT is by allusion, another way see it is the repetition of a general pattern. Again, Leithart offers a great example. One of the most common patterns or themes in the OT is the movement from creation to re-creation. This is one of the main rhythms of the Biblical storyline. Leithart clearly maps it out in this table⁷:

As you can see, from Creation to the Church, this recurring pattern ties the whole Bible together. But, what does this typology tell us? Peter Leithart argues it tells us that “the way biblical writers interpret their own times is through the lenses of earlier events in Israel’s history.”⁸ This simple yet profound insight almost seems obvious in hindsight. It highlights how helpful typology can be for making sense of the Scriptures and consequently our own lives.

Before move on to the NT, I want to make a brief excursus and point out that this typological way of making sense of things is not just a biblical phenomenon. We also see it in how we try to make sense of world history. Take recent events, for example: analysts are trying to make sense of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine by drawing parallels to similar historical events.

I’ve seen several journalists draw parallels between what led to WWII and what led to the invasion of Ukraine. Just as the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI left Germany embarrassed and embittered, so the collapse of the Soviet Union left many in the former USSR embarrassed and embittered. Just as this resentment led to the rise of Hitler and his eventual invasion of Poland, so also, they argue, a similar resent led to the rise of Putin and his eventual invasion of Ukraine. This is to say, the German invasion of Poland is a type of Russia invading Ukraine and Hitler is a type of Putin. This, at least, is what many are suggesting.

2. HOW THE NT TELLS ITS STORY

Now, we will look at how typology is key to how the NT tells its story. I will spend less time looking at typology in the NT because I assume we are probably more familiar with this.

What we see throughout the NT is that its authors imitate the OT authors in their use of typology. The central ideas here are foreshadowing and prefiguring. The promises and prophecies in the OT are fulfilled in and by Jesus in the NT. As Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17).

As it relates to typology, this dynamic is often framed as something being “second and greater.” Here are some examples. The redemption of Jesus is framed as a second and greater Exodus throughout the NT. The New Covenant is a second and greater than the Old. Baptism is a second and greater sign of the covenant than circumcision. Jesus offers a second and greater sacrifice than Israel’s sacrificial system and is revealed as a second and greater Priest.

We already saw this in Romans 5 where Jesus is described as a second and greater Adam. Here’s one more example: the NT describes Jesus as a second great Moses. Here I will highlight just a few of the ways we see this in the pages of the NT:

• Both were protected from attempted infanticide by an evil ruler

• Both fled to safety (one from Egypt, the other to Egypt)

• Both were the givers of a law on a mountain

• Both were the mediators of a covenant

• Both were rejected by the same folks they were sent to deliver

• Both made intercession for sinful people and offered themselves as a substitute

The list could go on but even from this, we see that Jesus is similar to Moses but surpasses him. Jesus is another prophet-priest-king figure, like Moses but greater. This is a dynamic we see in all sorts of ways throughout NT.

Hopefully this quick survey, gives you a sense of typology in the Bible. Now I want how all of this helps us understand how we can see ourselves in the Biblical story.  

3. HOW WE ENTER THE STORY LITURGICALLY

In the last section on the NT, I tried to give a sense of how the OT points to and is fulfilled in the NT. The OT prefigures the NT. Here I want to show that the life of Church postfigures Jesus. That is, that the Church, in general, and individual Christians, in particular, are extensions of Jesus Christ and point back to him.

What do I mean by this? What I am talking about is a typological correspondence similar to that which we’ve seen in the OT and NT but from a different direction. In a similar way to how there is a correspondence between Adam and Jesus or Moses and Jesus, there is also a correspondence between Jesus and the Church and Jesus and every Christian.

In a similar way to how, for example, Adam prefigures Jesus and Jesus is the fulfilment of the imago Dei that Adam was meant to be but wasn’t, the NT describes Christians as postfiguring Jesus. The NT describes Christians as continuing the life and work and ministry of Jesus. Christians engage in a kind of “non-identical repetition.” We do not so much fulfill as extend Jesus. This, I am arguing, can be understood as typology.

We see this dynamic especially clear in the Book of Acts. Take the clear typological relationship between Jesus and Stephen. Note the parallels between Jesus and the first Christian martyr (see Acts 6-7):

• Both described as being full of grace/power

• Both performed signs and wonders

• Both were challenged by religious leaders

• Both had a sham trial before high priest & council

• Both were accused by false witnesses

• Both were executed because of the message of their preaching

• Both committed their spirit to God and cried aloud before dying

• Both prayed for their enemies during their execution

• Both were executed outside Jerusalem

• Both of their deaths spurred on a new movement in God’s redemptive plan

In these parallels, we see a typological connection between Jesus and Stephen. Stephen extends the message and ministry of Jesus as he proclaims the gospel and is martyred. The life and death of Jesus provides the contours of Stephen’s life and death. Stephen postfigures Jesus. His life and death clearly patterned or modeled after the life and death of Jesus. This is the paradigm for life in the Kingdom of God.

As we shift to liturgical seasons, we see a very similar dynamic in the Church calendar. This, in fact, is the logic of the Church calendar: it forms us to post figure Jesus.

As we follow the church calendar, we re-trace the story of Jesus every year and his story provides the pattern for our life together. You can see it clearly in this great liturgical calendar created by Third Church in Richmond, VA.

As you can see from In the first half, the Church rehearses the story of Jesus from Advent to the Ascension. In the second half, the emphasis is on story of the people of God. After Pentecost, the Spirit-filled people are sent out into the world as faithful witnesses, postfiguring Jesus in our own times and places.

Now I want to tie all the threads together and focus specifically about the forty-day season of Lent. By looking at this particular season, it becomes particularly clear how everything we’ve been considering here comes together.

The first thing to note here is that Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13) is modelled after Israel’s forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Just as Israel grumbled for bread, worshipped idols, and put God to test, Jesus was tempted by the devil with the same. The second thing to note is that the forty days season of Lent is modelled after Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness. These all have a typological relationship.

Just as Israel’s forty years in the wilderness prefigure Jesus’ temptation, the forty days of Lent postfigure the temptation. There are many layers of connection here and you can listen to my recent sermon for the First Sunday of Lent on this to explore further. Here, I want to focus specifically on the number 40. This is an obvious clue that there is a typological relationship at play.

Below are some relevant instances of the number 40 in the Bible. This clues us in to how significant and symbolic this number is in the Scriptures.

• Noah’s Flood - 40 days (Genesis 7:12)

• Moses spent 40 years in desert after fleeing Egypt (Acts 7:30)

• Exodus – 40 years wandering in wilderness (Exodus 16:35, Deut 8:2-5)

• Israelite spies the land of Canaan for 40 days (Numbers 13:25)

• Goliath taunted the army for 40 days (1Sam 17:16)

• Elijah fled from Jezebel in the desert 40 days (1Kings 19:8)

• God gave Nineveh 40 days to repent (Jonah 3:4)

• Jesus remained with disciples 40 days after resurrection (Acts 1:3)

• Jesus fasted and tempted in wilderness 40 days (Luke 4:1-13)

When we consider this list, a clear pattern emerges. The number forty symbolizes a period of time associated significant temptation, testing, and/or trial that ends with either judgment or victory (and sometimes both).

This gives insight into the significance of forty days in OT, for Jesus temptation, and for Lent. They’re all connected. Just as Stephen’s life and death are patterned after Jesus’s, Lent is a period of forty days patterned after Jesus temptation in the wilderness.

Seeing this typological relationship sheds light. Just as Jesus’s temptation was a kind of practice and preparation for the ultimate test – the cross – so too Christians practice Lent as a kind of practice and preparation for the trials and temptations we face as we bear our own crosses in the world.

During the forty days of Lent, the church proactively engages in the same spiritual disciplines Jesus practiced in the wilderness. Just as Jesus fasted, prayed, meditated on Scripture, so too Christians devote themselves to these things during Lent. Lent is intentionally modeled after all this. It postfigures this.

When we see the typological relationship – that Lent repeats the pattern of Christ’s forty days in the wilderness – this helps us see Lent is a kind of paradigm for the Christian life. It is marked by trusting God the Father and the denial of self, both of which prepare us to live lives of radical self-giving love. Typology helps us see that way of Lent is the Christian life in miniature.

The same, I think, is true of all liturgical seasons. Each, in their own way, forms us as characters in the biblical story.

I want to end with great passage from Gerard Loughlin’s Telling God’s Story because it ties together so many of the threads I’ve been trying to develop here. Loughlin writes:

The Church is a Christ-shaped people… It is a community in which people learn how to embody the story of Jesus Christ. The church can only tell the story of Christ if it has first read Christ’s story, consumed it in such a way that it nourishes and shapes the Church as consumer, reader and teller of the story. One might say that before the scriptural story can consume the world, the Church must consume the story in order to become its embodiment or ‘bearer’. Entering the story, becoming a character within its storied world, is then a matter of becoming part of the body that embodies the story.⁹

This is a great summary of the why of the liturgical calendar and how biblical typology illuminates it. We engage seasons like Lent in order that we might become a Christ-shaped people who are actively engaged in and bearers of the biblical story.

1. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 41-42.

2. Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, 2, 73. Cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, art 128.

3. Christopher J.H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, 117.

4. I think this concept was coined by Catherine Pickstock.

5. See also 1Cor 10:6, Paul refers to the experience of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness as types, as negative examples, to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. Phil 3 Paul describes himself as a type, as an example, and tells the Philippians to imitate him.

6. Peter Leithart, A House For My Name, 23-24.

7. ibid., 28.

8. ibid., 23.

9. Gerard Loughlin, Telling God’s Story, 86-87.