Joshua Typology in the New Testament

Written by Richard Ounsworth Reviewed By Malcolm Gill

The use of the OT in the NT has been the subject of much discussion over the last twenty years. While serious studies have been undertaken during that time there is still a lack of consensus concerning how the authors of the NT use the OT. An example of this can be seen in Richard Ounsworth’s recent work Joshua Typology in the New Testament. This monograph demonstrates that there is still room for further reflection and analysis of the topic. In particular, the author brings to the fore the often neglected, and regularly misunderstood, practice of typology.

Ounsworth’s central thesis can be seen in the opening sentence of the book where he states, “The suggestion I wish to offer is that a greater sense of the unity of the Letter to the Hebrews can be achieved by inferring from the letter a typological relationship between Joshua the son of Nun and Jesus” (p. 1). To defend this idea the author develops the relationship between Joshua and Jesus through an investigation of both the background of the Letter to the Hebrews as well as select passages within the book itself.

At the heart of Ounsworth’s reading of Hebrews are two main tenets. First, the authorial intent of the book is not as significant as “the plausibility of inferences that might have been made by the historical audience of Hebrews” (p. 19). Second, the historical audience “familiar with the scriptures of Israel in their broad thrust, if not necessarily in their verbal detail, will have been ready to infer a particular kind of typological relationship between Jesus and Joshua” (p. 19). It is upon these two presuppositions that Ounsworth’s work rests.

To argue that the historical audience would have detected the ontological typology inferred from a Jesus/Joshua comparison, Ounsworth seeks to validate his approach by surveying the background to NT typology. Following the lead of H.D. Hummel and Michael Fishbane, Ounsworth spends considerable time wrestling with identifying what is genuine typology and what is not. What is distinctive in Ounsworth’s approach is that he presents typology not in terms of the verbal correspondence of the biblical author as much as the inferred understanding people would have deduced based on their understanding of the unfolding of Heilsgeschichte.

In chapter three of the book Ounsworth presents an engaging evaluation of Heb 3:7–4:11. In this section he correctly observes the historical connections of the author to Ps 95 and Num 14 and carefully reflects on this correspondence through a detailed analysis of the passage. He concludes that there is both similarity and difference between the first Joshua and the second Joshua (Jesus). While there is nothing overly controversial with his reflections, it is his next step of moving beyond the explicit reference to Joshua in Heb 3–4 to what he interprets as theological inferences throughout the rest of the book that will prove troublesome for most readers. For Ounsworth, the Joshua/Jesus connection permeates not just the chapters verbally connecting the two, but the theme continues to unfold in other areas such as the High Priest, the veil, and the Holy of Holies (p. 176).

While the book title indicates that the focus is on Typology in the New Testament, the book itself spends very little time outside of the letter to the Hebrews, with only a fleeting discussion of Jude. In spite of this, the value of Ounsworth’s work lies in his serious reflection on the role of typology in the understanding of the historical audience of Hebrews. His assessment is put forward with a great deal of care and humility. His work, while technical, is written with clarity and his arguments straightforward. In spite of this, however, his attempt at validating his ‘ontological inference’ approach to the original audience seems virtually impossible to quantify. Throughout the book the repetition of terms like ‘might,’ ‘may,’ ‘perhaps’ and ‘possible’ indicate that even Ounsworth himself is speculative about the historical audience’s understanding of the book. While this does not rule out his approach based on ‘inference’ it does seem to minimize the likelihood of his view. While many will not find Ounsworth’s assertions convincing Joshua Typology in the New Testament provides fresh food for thought to those who think the subject of the use of the OT in the NT is passé.


Malcolm Gill

Malcolm Gill
Sydney Missionary and Bible College
Croydon, NSW, Australia

Other Articles in this Issue

Too often people think of the Reformation in terms of an abstract theological debate...

Abstract: Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism, edited by Christopher Hays and Christopher Ansberry, argues that evangelical scholars have failed to embrace historical criticism to the extent that they could and should...

Thomas Prince, editor of The Christian History—the first religious periodical in American history—could hardly have invented the Great Awakening, as Frank Lambert argues...

Theology is first and foremost about who God is and then about what he has done...

I would like to consider several elements in reviewing Bray’s work...