Saturday, October 16, 2021

Protestant J. Sidlow Baxter Bemoaning the Low View of Typology in Various Circles

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.