Typos by Leonhard Goppelt
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Typos by Leonhard Goppelt[1]
Typos was published originally in 1939 in German and was later translated and published in English in 1982. As it was Goppelt’s doctoral dissertation, it is remarkable how groundbreaking it has been for the field of biblical theology. Not many authors have such an influential work as their first publication.
Goppelt seeks to answer the question, “How did Jesus and the early church interpret the book they made the Holy Scripture of Christendom?” (4). His focus is on how the Old Testament is used in the New Testament and not in early Christianity. In his introduction, he highlights that Paul was the first to use the Greek word typos as a term for the prefiguring of the future in prior history. The term did not have that meaning prior to Paul, although its meaning was solidified as such in the following century by other Christian thinkers (4–5). In the remainder of the introduction, he details the history of the discussion of typology and briefly looks at major German scholars regarding how the NT uses the OT.
Goppelt’s goal is to determine the extent to which the OT was used typologically in the NT. He argues that typology has four characteristics. First, typology is based on historical facts, namely, persons, events, or institutions. Second, types are divinely ordained representations. He argues that historical facts can only be interpreted typologically if they are intended as types of future realities. Third, there is escalation between the type and antitype. If there is no heightening and merely a repetition, then it can only be called typology in a limited way. Finally, it is based on a correspondence—or, as Goppelt puts it, an analogy between the OT and NT. There is a likeness between the type and anti-type. He also details the difference between allegory and typology, primarily viewing allegory as unconcerned with the literal sense of a passage in which historical facts are not material for interpretation.
In the remainder of his work, he analyzes how typology was used by Jewish contemporaries of the NT, specifically addressing Palestinian Judaism, the Pseudepigrapha, and rabbinic writers. Goppelt notes that while there is a literal-symbolic-typological interpretation in these texts, there is no escalation. The view that the past is inferior or that there is something greater in the present is foreign to these texts. The past was viewed as a glorious period of Israel’s history, so there was no sense of a need for a heightened fulfillment in the present. A subsequent chapter focuses primarily on Philo, discussing the philosophical basis for his hermeneutic and analyzing his allegorical method.
He then turns his attention to typology in the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, Hebrews, and the Gospel of John, after which he provides a conclusion of his findings. For the Gospel writers, the only way they could describe the impression Jesus made on them was through reference to persons or events in OT redemptive history and prophecy. Moreover, Paul employs typology to proclaim the significance of Christ’s redemptive act and the permanence of the church. In his chapter on Hebrews, Goppelt argues that Hebrews uses typology to make Scripture applicable to the present and contains the most thorough development of the typological approach to the Mosaic period. In his chapter on John, Goppelt states that typology is seen primarily through a creation typology and a clear typology with the OT.
Goppelt’s work is one of the most significant works on typology in the last one hundred years. The common German view during his time was that the interpretation of Jesus was developed from contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic ideas, and Goppelt demonstrated that this is false in his second and third chapters.
Second, Goppelt rehabilitated typology since it was not viewed seriously at that point. He identified it as the essential hermeneutic that links the two testaments. He also gave it a historical grounding and distinguished it from allegory.
Furthermore, Goppelt demonstrated the unity of the NT writers’ understanding of the OT. He highlighted the unity of the NT writings while not neglecting the diversity that exists among them. Any work that studies typology has to make reference to Goppelt, since it is one of the foundational works on the subject matter.
Where does it fit into the field today? It is helpful to compare Goppelt’s view to that of another major scholar in the field of biblical theology today, G.K. Beale. Goppelt pointed out that typology is a one-to-one correspondence, whereas Beale makes more thematic connections. Specifically, Goppelt saw the Temple as a type of Christ, but Beale states that the Temple was always meant to be seen as a microcosm of the creation, moving from Eden to the Tabernacle, the Temple, Jesus, the church, and finally to the new creation.
Furthermore, Goppelt contends that typology is retrospective—meaning the NT authors looked back and saw the divine intention in the correspondence. In contrast, Beale argues there are prospective cues in the OT that point to the divinely intended pattern, identifying recurring vocabulary or themes that signal a pattern is being established.
Some other key differences between Beale and Goppelt are the limited nature of types that Goppelt identifies. Whereas Goppelt noted only major events or persons, Beale sees entire systems as existing typologically. Furthermore, Goppelt sees escalation between type and antitype as related more to quality (shadow vs. reality), while Beale understands escalation as related to scope (national Israel vs. universal church).
While I generally think Beale has helpfully refined many areas of Goppelt’s work, Beale’s work would not have developed in the same trajectory without the foundational work that Goppelt undertook. Goppelt’s work, thus, played a significant role in laying a foundation upon which Beale built.
There are some minor areas where Goppelt’s work falls short; namely, it focuses almost exclusively on German scholarship. He does not work with contemporary Jewish exegetical techniques such as midrash or pesher, though Jewish exegetical techniques were made prominent by Longenecker after the publication of Typos. Furthermore, it would have helped to have a chapter on the use of typology in the prophets (or OT broadly) following the introduction. OT typology is probably where the book lacks the most, though Goppelt has several long footnotes detailing elements of typology in the prophets. Some might quibble with his lack of exposition in certain places, but with his scope as large as it was, he does a remarkable job analyzing the NT in the detail in which he does.
No book is perfect, but Goppelt’s work analyzes, as comprehensively as it can, how the NT utilizes the OT typologically. His work serves as an excellent example of having a well-defined thesis, advancing the field of biblical theology significantly. Additionally, his work served as a precursor for other major works in the field, including those by France, Baker, and Ellis.[2] Anyone who wants to study typology has to read Goppelt’s work, it is simply that essential.
Adam Day
Tyndale Theological Seminary, Netherlands (April 2026)
TL;DR
Goppelt’s work argued persuasively that typology is one of the main ways the NT uses the OT.
The NT writers did not develop typology from their Jewish contemporaries.
Typology must be historical, a divinely intended pattern, have an analogy (or correspondence) between the type and anti-type, and escalate (the fulfillment must be greater than the original).
His work influenced every other evangelical work on typology post-1939, so it is the foundational work in the field.
[1] Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, trans. Donald H. Madvig (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
[2]David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Rev. ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010); R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Vancouver: Regent, 1992); E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), among others.
