What is your general advice on the teaching of Old Testament typology? Is it wise to go beyond New Testament interpretations of the Old Testament when assigning meaning to details?

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1988.

This is a very large and most interesting question. By your leave I shall answer it in four instalments. In the early instalments, I will give what 'general advice' I can. Then, at the end, I will give my answer to your second question.

General Advice

My first piece of advice: start by noticing the terms used by the New Testament in its interpretation of the Old Testament. A good place to start is the comment of the writer to the Hebrews on the significance of the tabernacle, because it is explicit and extensive. He points out that the tabernacle had two functions:

1. Hebrews 8:5; 9:23: 'a copy and shadow of heavenly things'.

It was that, of course, for Israel: a system of very accurately constructed symbols designed to convey to the Israelites of that day and age some concept of eternal truths and realities.

The ark, for instance, containing the two tablets of the law, taught Israel something of the nature of God's throne, righteousness and principles of government.

The veil taught Israel that God dwells in light unapproachable; its colours showed something of the beauty of his holiness, and the cherubim reminded them of the awesomeness of his power (cf. the effect of Ezekiel of his vision of God's throne and cherubim).

The manna in the ark was a reminder of Israel's historical experience of God in the desert, and of the lesson God taught Israel by its means (see Deuteronomy 8:3).

The sacrifices taught Israel that sin is costly and leads to death; that forgiveness cannot be granted on the basis that, in the end, sin does not matter. Sin has to be paid for. On the other hand, the system of sacrifices taught Israel that there is forgiveness with God, and multitudes of Israelites actually found and enjoyed forgiveness (see Leviticus 5:10).

All this, and very much more besides, the tabernacle taught generations of Israelites as a symbol of heavenly things, even though most of them had no idea whatsoever that the tabernacle had another function, as we shall presently see. Its symbols in themselves, of course, could not effect what they symbolized: the blood of bulls could not purge a conscience, nor the holy water of the laver remove moral defilement. They were only symbols. Doubtless many Israelites used them as if they were somehow magical—like how some Roman Catholics treat holy water today—but more spiritual Israelites saw they were only symbols (cf. Psalm 51:6–7). But the symbols taught Israel in the way that toy money teaches children the concept of cost and value, and the function of real money.

2. Hebrews 10:1 (see also 9:11): 'a shadow of the good things to come', i.e. a shadow of Christ and the redemption he would effect.

As such, of course, it has an important service to perform for Gentiles (as well as Jews) who never lived under the regime of the tabernacle and its first function.

A detailed picture in your holiday brochure of the beautiful seaside hotel not only prepares your mind for what you may expect when you get there; but when at last you do get there, it can help you to recognize which among the many hotels at that seaside resort is the one you have booked into. All you have to do is compare each hotel with the picture ('shadow') in the brochure and the one that fits is the one you want. Of course, the hotel is made of very different material from the picture of the brochure, and you will be prepared for the differences as well as the similarities. But the value of the picture for deciding which hotel is which is indisputable.

So, one of the ways in which we know that Jesus is the true Saviour and Redeemer is that he 'fits' the God-given 'shadow of the good things to come'. Moreover, the great reality is spiritual; but the shadow was a three-dimensional material construction with material activities. As such, the tabernacle and its rituals provide us with a tool or model to think with, and so help us grasp the abstract spiritual and theological principles of salvation. Many people find it helpful to think in pictures and not merely in abstract logic. We should take full advantage of this God-given model for thinking with.

Two observations should be made on this function of the tabernacle: (a) the use of the tabernacle in its second function does not deny the importance or historical validity of its first function, and (b) many ancient Jews would have profited from its first function without being aware that it had a second function. To say of some detail of interpretation at the level of the second function that 'no Old Testament Jew would have seen that in it' is merely to state what was to be expected ex hypothesi.

Some other examples of this same principle:

Adam and Eve:

• Interpreted and applied (to us) at the literal level (see Matthew 19:3–6; Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 11:8–9).
• Interpreted and applied at the typological level (see Ephesians 5:31–32).

The Manna:

• The literal manna coming down from heaven (see Psalm 78:24) was both a miracle—pointing to God's supernatural power—and a sign, teaching the lesson that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (see Deuteronomy 8:3). It was a literal, historical event. Our Lord's multiplication of the loaves and the fishes was likewise a miracle and a sign (see John 6:26–27). As such, it could be viewed merely on the same level as the manna, and as teaching the same, or a similar, lesson as the manna.
• But it is more. And to explain that 'more', our Lord uses the literal manna as a type (or shadow) of the good thing to come. Now, the manna coming down from heaven is not just a miracle—no more or less a miracle than multiplying loaves and fishes—but it becomes a picture of the true bread who came down from heaven in the altogether higher sense of the incarnation (see John 6:32, cf. the term 'true' in 15:1; Hebrews 8:2).

No Jew in the desert observing the descent of the manna and learning from it lesson (a) could be expected to see that this descent of literal bread from heaven was a foreshadowing of (b). But when Christ pointed it out, his disciples could see it. And notice once more that the acceptance of function (b) for the manna does not rob the literal manna of its value as a practical lesson to the ancient Israelite or even to us today. We who have eaten of the true bread from heaven still need to be reminded that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matthew 4:4).

The levels of meaning in the Old Testament

Notice that there are more levels of meaning in the Old Testament other than the contrast between literal or typical. Take as an example the way the rite of circumcision is regarded, and note the different levels of meaning:

The way the rite of circumcision is regarded:

• Romans 4:11: A sign and seal of righteousness by faith.
• Genesis 17; Acts 10:45: A covenant emblem or badge of physical descent from Abraham (as a thistle is used for Scotland, a leek for Wales, and a shamrock for Ireland).
• Romans 2:25: A symbol of obligation and intention to live a holy life.
• Exodus 6:12: A metaphor: uncircumcised lips; Deuteronomy 10:16: 'circumcise your hearts and do not be stiff-necked' (both expressions are metaphors).
• Colossians 2:11–12; Philippians 3:3: A type of the putting off the body of the flesh, the 'true' circumcision (cf. the true manna and the true tabernacle).

The case of Abraham's faith:

• Romans 4:3: Abraham's justification by faith: not a type but a legal precedent.
• Romans 4:17–25: Abraham's faith that God could give a son to 'dead' parents provides us with an analogy. It lays down that in some form or other, true faith (by which anyone must be justified), must be faith in a God who gives life to the dead. With us, that means believing in the resurrection of Christ.

Type and Prototype

The tabernacle, from beginning to end, was a copy of things in the heavens. The life of Solomon was hardly that! Yet Solomon, as David's son and seed, was a prototype of our Lord as David's Son, as you can see from 1 Chronicles 17:13–14. This in the first place applies to Solomon, but in a much fuller sense to Christ (see Hebrews 1:5).

The first prototype motor car was a very crude affair and was constantly breaking down. But it embodied a principle that would long afterwards be expressed in greater perfection in the modern motor car. The Old Testament contains many prototypes which give partial and imperfect expression to principles that later were to be expressed more perfectly and at higher levels in Christ, in the church and in eternity.

The falling of a corn of wheat into the ground, its dying and its rising again, can be viewed as a prototype at the humble level of creation of death, burial and resurrection at the infinitely higher level. When people object against typology that 'the type breaks down', more often than not they are talking of 'prototypes'; and prototypes naturally, and almost by definition, break down. Solomon was David's son; so was our Lord. Solomon introduced a golden age of peace in Israel; our Lord more so. Solomon went soft and indulgent and compromised with his idolatrous wives; our Lord never did.

Interpreting Typology

Certainly typological interpretations have been taken to unauthorized extremes in some quarters. In order to prevent us from falling into this error, it would be tempting to lay down the rule that only those details which the New Testament explicitly says are 'types' should be interpreted as types. But before we formulate such a rule, we should notice (a) the different levels at which the New Testament uses the Old Testament, and (b) how any one passage in the New Testament is liable to use more than one level simultaneously.

In addition to straight take-overs (e.g. Thou shalt do no murder), the New Testament uses the Old Testament as:

1. Simile. E.g. Matthew 24:37: 'As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be . . .' (though 1 Peter 3: 20–22 uses the flood as a type).

2. Metaphor. 'Gird up the loins of your mind' (1 Peter 1:13), which is both a metaphor and an allusion to Exodus 12:11. Also, 1 Peter 1:4 is an allusion to Canaan. See also Philippians 2:17. Legal precedent: Abraham's justification 'by faith' set a legal precedent for all subsequent ages, and is so quoted in the New Testament. But notice how in Romans 4 the argument from legal precedent—Abraham's justification by faith, we must be justified in literally the same way—is immediately followed by an argument from . . .

3. Analogy. For Abraham's faith meant believing in a God who could give life to his and Sarah's bodies, which were now dead. For us, 'faith' means believing in God who raised Jesus from the dead. The two cases are not exactly the same; but there is an analogy between the two.

4. Paradigm. The law about the ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) is cited in 1 Corinthians 9:9 as a paradigm for the treatment of Christian workers. Both Roman and Jewish lawyers used this principle in order to apply ancient laws to modern situations.

5. Allusion. Allusions to the Old Testament are exceedingly frequent in the New Testament, far more frequent than might at first sight appear. Such allusions set up parallels between an Old Testament and a New Testament situation, the details of which the New Testament writer often leaves us to fill in for ourselves.

For example, when Jude says of some that they have perished in the gainsaying (rebellion) of Korah (Jude 11), he does not tell us in what details the rebellion of his contemporaries resembles the rebellion of Korah. Are we meant, therefore, to content ourselves with the idea that the comparison between the two rebellions lies in the brute fact that they were both rebellions, never mind what the rebellions were about? Or are we allowed, indeed expected, to take the Book of Numbers seriously; to notice that Korah's rebellion took the form of 'denying' the claims of Moses the prophet, and of Aaron the high priest, of Israel; and to ask ourselves what the counterpart of those denials would be in the New Testament, even though Jude does not spell out those details?

My answer to my own question would be that we are expected to go beyond what Jude explicitly says and allow his bare allusion to Korah's rebellion to lead us to see the very strong analogy between Korah and those who, in Jude's day, denied the claims of the apostle and high priest of their profession. In thus going beyond what the New Testament explicitly says and seeing significance in details, our safeguard against arbitrary and fanciful interpretations will be in first of all taking the Old Testament seriously as God-inspired literature and endeavouring to understand the details of any narrative in the light of its original context, before tracing any analogy between these details and some New Testament situation or other.