Commenting on 1 Cor 10:4 ("and that rock was Christ") and how many seem to "poo-poo" the use of typology, one Protestant wrote the following:
What a
regrettable thing it is that the Old Testament type-teaching is so little
elucidated in the generality of modern pulpits! It is a regrettable omission
for two reasons outstandingly—(1) because the type content of the Old Testament
furnishes a grand proof of its inspiration, being the most wonderful of all
forms of prophecy, and (2) because it invests the Old Testament with an
endless new wealth of meaning for ourselves to-day. There seems to be a strange
ignorance even of the presence of such type-teaching in the Old
Testament. “Never heard such an idea before,” said a well-known minister to a
friend of mine who had preached on one of the Old Testament types. Said
another, to myself, “I am surprised you can believe such a thing”; yet surely
the far more surprising thing is that he himself cannot believe it, for
it Is certainly there, and the New Testament again and against says so! Yes, “that
rock was Christ.” (J. Sidlow Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts [London:
Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Ltd., 1949], 25-26, emphasis in original)
Yes, typology can be abused (such as the common Roman Catholic abuse of purported parallels between Mary and various Old Testament objects and people), but typology is used in Scripture (e.g., 1 Pet 3:19-21 [v. 21 even uses ἀντίτυπος]) and is, so while care should be taken when approaching purported types and/or reading passages in a typological manner, it is in and of itself, not a problematic method, though should be subordinated to the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
