Typology is one of the main ways the New Testament authors use the Old Testament. It is rooted in history and theology. In the Old Testament, types are like historical previews that anticipate the realities brought about by Jesus. In this sense, typology is a form of prophecy, through events, rather than through words. Typology also is grounded in theology because God guides events, selects specific individuals, and establishes institutions that prophetically foreshadow the redemptive realities triggered by Jesus. Like prophecy, typology points to God’s sovereignty over history.
Despite the importance of typological interpretation of Scripture, many Christians are not familiar with the topic. The study of Joshua offers an excellent opportunity to learn about biblical typology and to consider the criteria for identifying types in the Old Testament, their fulfillment in the New Testament, and the practical relevance of typology in the present-day Adventist journey.
Through typology, which highlights God’s patterns throughout Scripture, people can grasp His sovereignty over history and His enduring mercy toward humanity, despite the persistent sinfulness of His children. History is the platform upon which God unveils His love for humanity. This revelation unfolds through various stages, intricately tied to the unique expressions of the eternal covenant between God and His creation. These expressions form the backbone of typology. The patterns found in Joshua’s typology highlight God’s desire to save His people so that they may enjoy His presence and rest, without fear, in His incredible love.
Part II: Commentary
Definition
It is not an exaggeration to affirm that “historically, Seventh-day Adventism is not only a prophetic movement; it is also a typological movement.” Since the beginning of Adventism, “typology was a method used to evaluate, experience, and understand Adventism identity, role, and message in salvation history.”—Erick Mendieta, “Typology and Adventist Eschatological Identity: Friend or Foe?” Andrews University Seminary Student Journal, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 2015), pp. 45, 46. There are two kinds of typology: vertical and horizontal. Vertical typology concerns the relationship between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary. It is the most widely known and studied within Adventism. Horizontal typology involves the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and it is one of the primary ways to discern Jesus within the writings of “Moses and all the prophets” (Luke 24:27). This typology is the focus of our lesson for this week.
The traditional understanding of typology can be summarized in the following definition: “the study of persons, events, or institutions (the types) that God has divinely designed to prefigure their end-time fulfillments (the antitypes) in Christ and in the gospel realities brought about by Him.”—Richard M. Davidson, In the Footsteps of Joshua (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1995), p. 26. Such a definition is not arbitrarily imposed on Scripture but rather it emerges from the survey of the passages wherein the Greek term typos (type) occurs in the New Testament (1 Cor. 10:1–13; Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Pet. 3:18–22; Hebrews 8, 9), as shown in the seminal work of Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).
Identifying Joshua Typology
According to Davidson’s definition, there are four criteria for identifying types and antitypes: historicity, correspondence, prefiguration, and escalation. First, types are historical realities documented by the Old Testament. When the New Testament author looks back at the Old Testament to find types, he seeks events, persons, or institutions rooted in history. For instance, there is no typological import in parables (compare with Josh. 9:7–15, 2 Sam. 12:1–4). In typology, God is acting in history, creating patterns of prophetic import to be later recognized by His people and prophets. From the New Testament perspective, there is no doubt that Joshua is a historical character. In his final speech, Stephen recounts Joshua’s role as Israel’s leader during the conquest, during which time the tabernacle of testimony was brought to Canaan (see Acts 7:44, 45, NASB). Joshua also is mentioned in Hebrews 4:7, 8 as the one who brought temporary rest to Israel.
Another fundamental step in identifying typological relationships between the Old and New Testaments is the presence of legitimate correspondences. These correspondences must be historically valid, genuine, and not simply coincidental or imaginative. In addition to the correspondences mentioned in Wednesday’s study, Joshua and Jesus share the same name, which is differentiated in Hebrew and Greek, as in English. This does not appear to be incidental for two reasons. Primarily, this appellation is the first in the biblical canon with a theophoric element, specifically, a particle referring to God’s name. Joshua’s name is the combination of the Hebrew verb ysh’ (to save) and the particle yo (jo), which is an abbreviation of Yahweh (usually translated as “the Lord”). Second, Joshua is not his original name. Moses, probably under divine influence, changed his name from Hoshea (salvation) to Joshua (Yahweh is salvation) (Num. 13:16).
The third element to be considered is prefiguration. God prophetically designs legitimate types that could be recognizable even before their fulfillment, at least in their basic contours. This element reinforces the notion that the New Testament authors are not creatively inventing connections between the Testaments. The prophetic element of the Old Testament type has already been inscriptured in the biblical text. For this reason, the original audience could have grasped this predictive import through clues left by the inspired authors. Once most of the clues were found, as the readers compared one previous revelation with a more recent one, it is only natural that the types would become more evident as the canon grew.
Two important points need to be emphasized again here. First, only the Christ event could reveal the Messianic import of the Old Testament in full force. Second, in the history of interpretation, some types were recognized only in retrospect. Yet, these facts do not preclude the existence of prophetic import in the original context and the possibility of recognition of this import by the original audience. Identifying these textual warrants serves as an interpretative control, preventing the reader from imposing on the text something that is not there. Without such controls, typology easily degenerates into allegory. Allegory was the predominant method of biblical interpretation during the Middle Ages. Unlike typology, allegory finds spiritual meanings in the Old Testament that are foreign to the author’s intention and the original context.
An additional textual warrant, validating the Joshua typology in the Old Testament, may be mentioned here: the unique character of Joshua’s connection with the mission of the Angel of the Lord, the preexistent Christ in the Pentateuch. Davidson suggests that “the descriptions of Joshua’s mission and that of the Angel of the Lord contain numerous parallel expressions, using exactly the same Hebrew words. Both Joshua and the Angel of the Lord were to ‘cross over before’ and ‘go before’ Israel and ‘bring them into the land’ and ‘cause them to inherit’ it (cf. Ex. 23:23; Num. 27:17, 21; Deut. 3:28; 31:3, 23).” Davidson also underscores the direct connection between Joshua (the postexilic priest) and the Messiah in Zechariah 6:12, in which “the prophet equates the name of Joshua with the Messiah”: “Then speak to him [Joshua], saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!” ’ ”—Davidson, In the Footsteps of Joshua, pp. 29, 30.
The final criterion for identifying typology that is to be mentioned here is escalation. The concept of escalation is well illustrated by the metaphor of “shadow,” used by the author of Hebrews to explain the relationship between the Levitical system of offerings and sacrifices, including festivals and rituals, which pointed to the Jesus event. Escalation involves an elevation or intensification from type to antitype: a crescendo from local to universal, from provisory to definitive, from temporal to eternal, and the human to the divine sphere.
This progression is evident in the Joshua typology. Just as Joshua led the conquest of Canaan and provided temporary rest for Israel, the new Joshua commands the heavenly army in the cosmic battle against “principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12, NKJV). His victory is definitive and gives eternal rest to God’s people.
Scriptural typology is a fascinating area of biblical study and should not be restricted to scholars. In his dialogue on the road to Emmaus, Jesus tenderly rebuked the two men for failing to read the Scriptures typologically: “ ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25–27, NKJV). May Seventh-day Adventists avoid making the same mistake today.
Part III: Life Application
God’s Consistence Today
The different types are grounded in historical patterns that have been influenced by divine interventions, as a result of God’s promises. They demonstrate God’s faithfulness in His interactions with humanity and His supreme authority over history. Typology is not just a method for interpreting the Old Testament in relation to Jesus; it is also a way to interpret history.
How do you think God’s consistency and control over history can help you to deal with the uncertainties of human existence?
Types Today
On the one hand, the study of typology helps us understand who Jesus is and what God is doing through Him. It shows how such individuals as Moses, Aaron, and David foreshadow the roles of the Messiah as priest, prophet, and king. Similarly, institutional types, such as the sacrifices and religious festivals like Passover, reveal the substitutionary nature of His mission. Typological events also point to the things Jesus will accomplish on behalf of His people. On the other hand, typology reveals God’s expectations regarding His children.
Considering these two aspects of typology, what do the following types reveal about Jesus, and how can you use their examples to model your life according to God’s will?
Isaac lying down on the altar in submission (Genesis 22; compare with Heb. 11:17–19)
Joseph as the deliverer of his family in his interaction with his brothers (Genesis 44–45)
Moses as the deliverer and intercessor of Israel (Exod. 32:30–34)
David as the chosen (messiah) king in his interaction with Saul (1 Samuel 24, 26)
Notes
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Text: 1 Corinthians 10:11
Study Focus: 1 Cor. 10:1–13, Matt. 2:15, Josh. 1:1–3, Acts 3:22–26, Heb. 3:7–4:11, 2 Cor. 10:3–5.
Typology is one of the main ways the New Testament authors use the Old Testament. It is rooted in history and theology. In the Old Testament, types are like historical previews that anticipate the realities brought about by Jesus. In this sense, typology is a form of prophecy, through events, rather than through words. Typology also is grounded in theology because God guides events, selects specific individuals, and establishes institutions that prophetically foreshadow the redemptive realities triggered by Jesus. Like prophecy, typology points to God’s sovereignty over history.
Despite the importance of typological interpretation of Scripture, many Christians are not familiar with the topic. The study of Joshua offers an excellent opportunity to learn about biblical typology and to consider the criteria for identifying types in the Old Testament, their fulfillment in the New Testament, and the practical relevance of typology in the present-day Adventist journey.
Through typology, which highlights God’s patterns throughout Scripture, people can grasp His sovereignty over history and His enduring mercy toward humanity, despite the persistent sinfulness of His children. History is the platform upon which God unveils His love for humanity. This revelation unfolds through various stages, intricately tied to the unique expressions of the eternal covenant between God and His creation. These expressions form the backbone of typology. The patterns found in Joshua’s typology highlight God’s desire to save His people so that they may enjoy His presence and rest, without fear, in His incredible love.
Part II: Commentary
Definition
It is not an exaggeration to affirm that “historically, Seventh-day Adventism is not only a prophetic movement; it is also a typological movement.” Since the beginning of Adventism, “typology was a method used to evaluate, experience, and understand Adventism identity, role, and message in salvation history.”—Erick Mendieta, “Typology and Adventist Eschatological Identity: Friend or Foe?” Andrews University Seminary Student Journal, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 2015), pp. 45, 46. There are two kinds of typology: vertical and horizontal. Vertical typology concerns the relationship between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary. It is the most widely known and studied within Adventism. Horizontal typology involves the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and it is one of the primary ways to discern Jesus within the writings of “Moses and all the prophets” (Luke 24:27). This typology is the focus of our lesson for this week.
The traditional understanding of typology can be summarized in the following definition: “the study of persons, events, or institutions (the types) that God has divinely designed to prefigure their end-time fulfillments (the antitypes) in Christ and in the gospel realities brought about by Him.”—Richard M. Davidson, In the Footsteps of Joshua (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1995), p. 26. Such a definition is not arbitrarily imposed on Scripture but rather it emerges from the survey of the passages wherein the Greek term typos (type) occurs in the New Testament (1 Cor. 10:1–13; Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Pet. 3:18–22; Hebrews 8, 9), as shown in the seminal work of Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).
Identifying Joshua Typology
According to Davidson’s definition, there are four criteria for identifying types and antitypes: historicity, correspondence, prefiguration, and escalation. First, types are historical realities documented by the Old Testament. When the New Testament author looks back at the Old Testament to find types, he seeks events, persons, or institutions rooted in history. For instance, there is no typological import in parables (compare with Josh. 9:7–15, 2 Sam. 12:1–4). In typology, God is acting in history, creating patterns of prophetic import to be later recognized by His people and prophets. From the New Testament perspective, there is no doubt that Joshua is a historical character. In his final speech, Stephen recounts Joshua’s role as Israel’s leader during the conquest, during which time the tabernacle of testimony was brought to Canaan (see Acts 7:44, 45, NASB). Joshua also is mentioned in Hebrews 4:7, 8 as the one who brought temporary rest to Israel.
Another fundamental step in identifying typological relationships between the Old and New Testaments is the presence of legitimate correspondences. These correspondences must be historically valid, genuine, and not simply coincidental or imaginative. In addition to the correspondences mentioned in Wednesday’s study, Joshua and Jesus share the same name, which is differentiated in Hebrew and Greek, as in English. This does not appear to be incidental for two reasons. Primarily, this appellation is the first in the biblical canon with a theophoric element, specifically, a particle referring to God’s name. Joshua’s name is the combination of the Hebrew verb ysh’ (to save) and the particle yo (jo), which is an abbreviation of Yahweh (usually translated as “the Lord”). Second, Joshua is not his original name. Moses, probably under divine influence, changed his name from Hoshea (salvation) to Joshua (Yahweh is salvation) (Num. 13:16).
The third element to be considered is prefiguration. God prophetically designs legitimate types that could be recognizable even before their fulfillment, at least in their basic contours. This element reinforces the notion that the New Testament authors are not creatively inventing connections between the Testaments. The prophetic element of the Old Testament type has already been inscriptured in the biblical text. For this reason, the original audience could have grasped this predictive import through clues left by the inspired authors. Once most of the clues were found, as the readers compared one previous revelation with a more recent one, it is only natural that the types would become more evident as the canon grew.
Two important points need to be emphasized again here. First, only the Christ event could reveal the Messianic import of the Old Testament in full force. Second, in the history of interpretation, some types were recognized only in retrospect. Yet, these facts do not preclude the existence of prophetic import in the original context and the possibility of recognition of this import by the original audience. Identifying these textual warrants serves as an interpretative control, preventing the reader from imposing on the text something that is not there. Without such controls, typology easily degenerates into allegory. Allegory was the predominant method of biblical interpretation during the Middle Ages. Unlike typology, allegory finds spiritual meanings in the Old Testament that are foreign to the author’s intention and the original context.
An additional textual warrant, validating the Joshua typology in the Old Testament, may be mentioned here: the unique character of Joshua’s connection with the mission of the Angel of the Lord, the preexistent Christ in the Pentateuch. Davidson suggests that “the descriptions of Joshua’s mission and that of the Angel of the Lord contain numerous parallel expressions, using exactly the same Hebrew words. Both Joshua and the Angel of the Lord were to ‘cross over before’ and ‘go before’ Israel and ‘bring them into the land’ and ‘cause them to inherit’ it (cf. Ex. 23:23; Num. 27:17, 21; Deut. 3:28; 31:3, 23).” Davidson also underscores the direct connection between Joshua (the postexilic priest) and the Messiah in Zechariah 6:12, in which “the prophet equates the name of Joshua with the Messiah”: “Then speak to him [Joshua], saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!” ’ ”—Davidson, In the Footsteps of Joshua, pp. 29, 30.
The final criterion for identifying typology that is to be mentioned here is escalation. The concept of escalation is well illustrated by the metaphor of “shadow,” used by the author of Hebrews to explain the relationship between the Levitical system of offerings and sacrifices, including festivals and rituals, which pointed to the Jesus event. Escalation involves an elevation or intensification from type to antitype: a crescendo from local to universal, from provisory to definitive, from temporal to eternal, and the human to the divine sphere.
This progression is evident in the Joshua typology. Just as Joshua led the conquest of Canaan and provided temporary rest for Israel, the new Joshua commands the heavenly army in the cosmic battle against “principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12, NKJV). His victory is definitive and gives eternal rest to God’s people.
Scriptural typology is a fascinating area of biblical study and should not be restricted to scholars. In his dialogue on the road to Emmaus, Jesus tenderly rebuked the two men for failing to read the Scriptures typologically: “ ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25–27, NKJV). May Seventh-day Adventists avoid making the same mistake today.
Part III: Life Application
God’s Consistence Today
The different types are grounded in historical patterns that have been influenced by divine interventions, as a result of God’s promises. They demonstrate God’s faithfulness in His interactions with humanity and His supreme authority over history. Typology is not just a method for interpreting the Old Testament in relation to Jesus; it is also a way to interpret history.
How do you think God’s consistency and control over history can help you to deal with the uncertainties of human existence?
Types Today
On the one hand, the study of typology helps us understand who Jesus is and what God is doing through Him. It shows how such individuals as Moses, Aaron, and David foreshadow the roles of the Messiah as priest, prophet, and king. Similarly, institutional types, such as the sacrifices and religious festivals like Passover, reveal the substitutionary nature of His mission. Typological events also point to the things Jesus will accomplish on behalf of His people. On the other hand, typology reveals God’s expectations regarding His children.
Considering these two aspects of typology, what do the following types reveal about Jesus, and how can you use their examples to model your life according to God’s will?
Notes