We can consider Noah a type of Christ. Follow G. K. Beale’s reasoning: “Nowhere in the NT, however, does it say that Noah is a type of Christ. Nevertheless, if Noah is a partial antitype of the first Adam but does not fulfill all to which the typological first Adam points, then Noah also can plausibly be considered a part of the Adamic type of Christ in the OT.” To put it another way: since Noah has literary resonances with Adam and since Adam is an identified type of Christ, we can put forward the argument that Noah also points forward as a type of Christ.

In order to get the most from this article, consider first reading earlier ones on the nature of Scripture, a text’s spiritual sense, a brief introduction to typology, and whether we should imitate the hermeneutic of the apostles.

Now to the point of this article: we can identify unidentified christological types in the Old Testament. By “unidentified” I’m referring to the fact that New Testament authors didn’t identify them. These types, however, may have been identified by many uninspired interpreters after the apostolic era.

Identified types include Adam, marriage, Melchizedek, Moses, the exodus, the Passover lamb, the tabernacle, David, Solomon, the temple, the priesthood, the bronze serpent, Jerusalem, Jonah’s fish experience, and the manna in the wilderness.

Unidentified types include Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Phinehas, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, the cord of Rahab, the ark of the covenant, Boaz, Elijah, Cyrus, Job, the three friends in the fiery furnace, Daniel’s deliverance from lions, and the rebuilt temple.

In chapters 17 through 24 of 40 Questions About Typology and Allegory, I explore 100 biblical types.

The easiest way to recognize a type is if the New Testament authors identify it. Such identification is an authoritative and inerrant claim about an Old Testament person, office, place, thing, institution, or event.

What about identifying unidentified types? Ask whether what you’re considering shares parallels with an Old Testament type that is identified. When types are identified by a New Testament writer, interpreters will notice that there are correspondences and escalation between the type and the antitype. You will probably also notice some kind of covenantal significance that the potential type bears.

Here’s an example of what I mean. We can consider Noah a type of Christ. Follow G. K. Beale’s reasoning: “Nowhere in the NT, however, does it say that Noah is a type of Christ. Nevertheless, if Noah is a partial antitype of the first Adam but does not fulfill all to which the typological first Adam points, then Noah also can plausibly be considered a part of the Adamic type of Christ in the OT.”

To put it another way: since Noah has literary resonances with Adam and since Adam is an identified type of Christ, we can put forward the argument that Noah also points forward as a type of Christ.

Read More