By Angus Harley

Stephen Wellum’s article “How to Interpret the Covenants and the Nature of Typology: A Companion Article” uses typology to defend his Progressive Covenantalist (PC) theology.[1] I will critique both his understanding and use of typology.

Wellum’s basic definition of a type is as follows:

“Typology is the study of the Old Testament redemptive historical realities or “types” (persons, events, institutions) which God has specifically designed to correspond to, and predictively prefigure, their intensified antitypical fulfillment aspects (inaugurated, appropriated, and consummated) in New Testament redemptive history.”

We will use this definition as a starting point for discussion on typology.

Reversing the interpretive direction

Rather than follow Wellum’s own view of typology that begins in the OT and works from it to the NT, that goes from type to antitype, we will do it in reverse order. The reader might think that his is just a stylistic preference: it is not. It is a hermeneutical decision. PC’s entire theological model forces us to begin in Genesis and its so-called Garden Covenant, and from that point work all the way to the NT. Typology then comes to be about the order of, type in the OT, followed by antitype in the NT. NCT, however, places the priority upon the NT’s witness. First and foremost, it is the NT alone that states the type-antitype model. It is not found in the OT. Second, as NCTers, we give interpretive priority to the NT, not to the OT. PC gives interpretive priority to the OT and its covenants, which are then fulfilled in the NT in Christ Jesus.

Adam vs Christ

A key example of the contrast of type and antitype is that of Adam (type) and Christ (antitype). Romans 5:14 says:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

Wellum’s positive reading

Due to Wellum’s PC interpretive model, Adam as a covenant head is seen as a positive model of typology that is built upon throughout the OT, in which there are a number of Adamic figures (Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David), who eventually are fulfilled in the NT, antitype, of Jesus Christ.

Negative type vs positive antitype

As a type of Christ, Adam is not being held up as a positive figure, far from it! He is the man in whom the entirety of mankind fell in sin. Adam is a type of Christ, in that Adam represented fallen mankind. Christ represents a new humanity. Thus, Adam is the this-world negative type and Christ the next-world positive antitype.

To prove this point, the reader need only read Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:

“Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

“1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive….42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.”

No idyllic Adamic figure

There is in this order of negative type contrasted to positive antitype not a shred of an idyllic Edenic setting in which Adam is the covenant head of mankind without sin, as if a kind of fountainhead figure that various other OT characters replicate. More importantly, Jesus is not at all considered to be the ‘ultimate’ fulfillment of this idyllic Adam.

No covenantal or promissory comparison

Due to Wellum’s strong emphasis upon the unfolding of divine covenants and their promises from the so-called Garden Covenant unto the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, he has to defend Adam as a covenant head to whom was given a covenant promise.

Yet, in the NT, Adam is not compared to Christ on the basis of covenants and promises, because he is contrasted in terms of sin, death, and condemnation over against Christ and his righteousness and heavenly life.

Not only is there no reference to either ‘promise’ or ‘covenant’ in Genesis 1-3, but the idea of a covenant is not even present. For divine covenants are redemptive in nature, dealing with sin. That is why, after the Fall, according to 1 Corinthians 11:25, there is a “new covenant” that is contrasted to the Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant (2 Cor.3). Both these covenants were created after the Fall of man, and both are not in continuity with one another. Put simply, the New Covenant is contrasted to the Old Covenant, not to the idea of a ‘Garden Covenant’.

Not multiple Adams

Wellum’s positive typological model that begins with the OT allows him to say that there were multiple Adamic figures in the OT. Yet, it is plain from the NT and 1 Corinthians 15 that there were not:

“45 …The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” (1 Cor.15:45-47)

It is crucial to Paul’s argument that there be only two Adams. The notion of multiple Adams would shatter Paul’s theological argument. For it is the difference, literally, between earth and heaven, between a man of the soil or sod, the first Adam, in contrast to the “second man…from heaven”, the “last Adam”. The first Adam represents this world, death, perishability, mortality, and sin. The second man represents heaven, eternal life, imperishability, and immortality.

Reverse polarity

What Wellum’s position does is, in effect, reverse the polarity of the NT witness, and makes Adam the antitype which many OT figures pointed toward. However, Noah, Abraham, and David are not considered as some form of Adamic figures. They are not mini-Adams! Their typological value is found in themselves, not in Adam. For example, David as David was a type of Christ; David was not a kind (type!) of Adam and then only a type of Christ.

Sonship: Israel vs Christ

Wellum’s positive reading

Another example of Wellum’s positive reading of typology is the way he refers to Israel as God’s son (Exo.4:22-23), who anticipate the coming of Jesus as Son. According to Wellum, this model of sonship is working from the lesser (Israel) to the greater (Christ).

NT’s negative comparison

What we don’t read in Wellum’s account is any record of Israel as a wicked nation as ‘son’. Indeed, when we read the NT, sonship is attributed to Jesus as Son. Sonship is stripped from Israel as a nation and given instead to those who believe in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile:

“24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25 As He says also in Hosea,

“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’

And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”

26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’

There they shall be called sons of the living God.”” (Rom.9:24-26)

Let me state this contrast as plainly as possible: we are far beyond the measurement of ‘lesser to greater’, and have entered into the same kind of contrast between fallen Adam and heavenly Christ.

Christological missing part

This is to say that the major difference between the assembly (church) as sons and the Old Covenant nation of Israel as ‘son’ or ‘sons’ is that Christ is missing as the ‘Son’ catalyst. The Israelites did not have faith in the Son to come, and therefore could not function as a positive model of sonship. Whereas, the assembly has faith in the Son, and becomes the ‘natural heir’ of the title of ‘sons’.

What about the ‘greater’ theme in the Gospels?

My reading must deal with the hard fact that the Gospels refer to Christ as “greater than the temple”, “greater than Jonah”, “greater than Solomon” (Matt.12:6, 41. 42). Aren’t these a positive model of comparison?

Positive

Yes, there is undoubtedly a positive element in this set of comparisons. It does not follow, however, that the same positivity is innate to that difference between Adam and Christ, or between Christ and Israel.

Balancing

We must distinguish, therefore, between a positive and a negative use of types, and resist putting all our typological ‘eggs’ into a positive ‘basket’. The context must determine what is positive and what is negative. PC is forced down the positive route because of its model of progressive covenants that are, from Genesis onward, unfolded via a positive model of Adam. If we start in the NT, we avoid reducing all types to being the same value, and also understand better how the OT was working. From the NT perspective we see that fallen Adam is a type of Christ in a negative sense, but wise Solomon is a positive type of Christ.

Retrospectively Christological

Even in the cases of the temple, Solomon, and Jonah, these are compared to Christ, and this is done retrospectively, from the point of view of the entrance of the kingdom of heaven via Jesus’ presence and Gospel. We are, in this, assessing the OT from the NT, Christological, point of view, and are not laying down an OT typological pattern of first importance that is then filled out in the NT. Due to not having this Christological, NT, control, Wellum mistakenly makes Adam before the Fall a positive type of Jesus.

[1] Stephen Wellum, “How to Interpret the Covenants and the Nature of Typology: A Companion Article”,  Christ Over All, September 6, 2023, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/how-to-interpret-the-covenants-and-the-nature-of-typology-a-companion-article/. For my prior critique of this article, see Angus Harley, “The New Covenant is not about conditional and unconditional elements: a response to Progressive Covenantalism”, All Things New Covenant, July 5, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/05/the-new-covenant-is-not-about-conditional-and-unconditional-elements-a-response-to-progressive-covenantalism/.