Post by Admin on Jul 26, 2023 11:47:09 GMT -5
Some suggest we should not use typology;
Patrick Fairburn says;
For it destroys to a large extent the bond of connection between the Old and the New Testament Scriptures, and thus deprives the Christian Church of much of the instruction in divine things which they were designed to impart. Were men accustomed, as they should be, to search for the germs of Christian truth in the earliest Scriptures, and to regard the inspired records of both covenants as having for their leading object "the testimony of Jesus," they would know how much they were losers by such an undue contraction of the typical element in Old Testament Scripture.
It is necessary, however, to take a closer view of the subject. The principle on which this typological system takes its stand, is, that
nothing less than inspired authority is sufficient to deter mine the reality and import of anything that is typical. But what necessary
reason or solid ground is there for such a principle? No one holds the necessity of inspiration to explain each particular prophecy, and
decide even with certainty on its fulfilment; and why should it be reckoned indispensable in the closely related subject of types? This question was long ago asked by Witsius, and yet waits for a satisfactory answer. A part only, it is universally allowed, of the prophecies which refer to Christ and His kingdom have been specially noticed and interpreted by the pen of inspiration. So little necessary, indeed, was inspiration for such a purpose, that even before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, our Lord reproved His disciples as "fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken." And from the close analogy between the two subjects
—for what is a type but a prophetical act or institution?
— we might reasonably infer the same liberty to have been granted, and the same obligation to be imposed, in regard to the typical parts of ancient Scripture. But we have something more than a mere argument from analogy to guide us to this conclusion. For the very same complaint is brought by an inspired writer against private Christians concerning their slowness in understanding the typical, which our Lord brought against His disciples in respect to the prophetical portions of ancient Scripture. In the epistle to the Hebrews a sharp reproof is administered for the imperfect acquaintance believers among them had with the typical character of Melchizedek, and subjects of a like nature
—thus placing it beyond a doubt that it is both the duty and the privilege of the Church, with that measure of the Spirit's grace which it is the part even of private Christians to possess, to search into the types of ancient Scripture,
and come to a correct understanding of them. To deny this, is plainly to withhold an important privilege from the Church of Christ; to
dissuade from it, is to encourage the neglect of an incumbent duty. But the unsoundness of the principle, which would thus limit the
number of types to those which New Testament Scripture has expressly noticed and explained, becomes still more apparent when
it is considered what these really are, and in what manner they are introduced. Leaving out of view the tabernacle, with its furniture and
services, which, as a whole, is affirmed in the epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians to have been of a typical nature, the following
examples are what the writers now referred to usually regard as having something like an explicit sanction in Scripture:
1. Persons or characters: Adam (Rom. 5:11, 12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Melchizedek (Heb. 7); Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac, and by implication Abraham
(Gal. 4:22-35); Moses (Gal. 3:19; Acts 3:22-26); Jonah (Matt. 12:40); David (Ezek. 37:24; Luke 1:32, etc.); Solomon (2 Sam. 7); Zerubbabel
and Joshua (Zech. 3, 4; Hag. 2:23).
2. Transactions or events:
the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark (1 Pet. 3:20);
the redemption from Egypt and its passover-memorial (Luke 22:15, 16; 1 Cor. 5:7;
the exodus (Matt. 2:15);
the passage through the Red Sea,
the giving of manna,
Moses veiling of his face while the law was read;
the water flowing from the smitten rock;
the serpent lifted up for healing in the wilderness,
and some other things that befell the Israelites there (1 Cor. 10; John 3:14, 5:33; Rev. 2:17).[24]
Indeed, were it otherwise, nothing could be more arbitrary and inexplicable than this Scriptural typology. For, what is there to distinguish the characters and events, which Scripture has thus particularized, from a multitude of others, to which the typical element might equally have been supposed to belong?
Is there anything on the face of the inspired record to make us look on them in a singular light, and attribute to them a significance altogether
peculiar respecting the future affairs of God's kingdom? S
Patrick Fairburn says;
For it destroys to a large extent the bond of connection between the Old and the New Testament Scriptures, and thus deprives the Christian Church of much of the instruction in divine things which they were designed to impart. Were men accustomed, as they should be, to search for the germs of Christian truth in the earliest Scriptures, and to regard the inspired records of both covenants as having for their leading object "the testimony of Jesus," they would know how much they were losers by such an undue contraction of the typical element in Old Testament Scripture.
It is necessary, however, to take a closer view of the subject. The principle on which this typological system takes its stand, is, that
nothing less than inspired authority is sufficient to deter mine the reality and import of anything that is typical. But what necessary
reason or solid ground is there for such a principle? No one holds the necessity of inspiration to explain each particular prophecy, and
decide even with certainty on its fulfilment; and why should it be reckoned indispensable in the closely related subject of types? This question was long ago asked by Witsius, and yet waits for a satisfactory answer. A part only, it is universally allowed, of the prophecies which refer to Christ and His kingdom have been specially noticed and interpreted by the pen of inspiration. So little necessary, indeed, was inspiration for such a purpose, that even before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, our Lord reproved His disciples as "fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken." And from the close analogy between the two subjects
—for what is a type but a prophetical act or institution?
— we might reasonably infer the same liberty to have been granted, and the same obligation to be imposed, in regard to the typical parts of ancient Scripture. But we have something more than a mere argument from analogy to guide us to this conclusion. For the very same complaint is brought by an inspired writer against private Christians concerning their slowness in understanding the typical, which our Lord brought against His disciples in respect to the prophetical portions of ancient Scripture. In the epistle to the Hebrews a sharp reproof is administered for the imperfect acquaintance believers among them had with the typical character of Melchizedek, and subjects of a like nature
—thus placing it beyond a doubt that it is both the duty and the privilege of the Church, with that measure of the Spirit's grace which it is the part even of private Christians to possess, to search into the types of ancient Scripture,
and come to a correct understanding of them. To deny this, is plainly to withhold an important privilege from the Church of Christ; to
dissuade from it, is to encourage the neglect of an incumbent duty. But the unsoundness of the principle, which would thus limit the
number of types to those which New Testament Scripture has expressly noticed and explained, becomes still more apparent when
it is considered what these really are, and in what manner they are introduced. Leaving out of view the tabernacle, with its furniture and
services, which, as a whole, is affirmed in the epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians to have been of a typical nature, the following
examples are what the writers now referred to usually regard as having something like an explicit sanction in Scripture:
1. Persons or characters: Adam (Rom. 5:11, 12; 1 Cor. 15:22; Melchizedek (Heb. 7); Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac, and by implication Abraham
(Gal. 4:22-35); Moses (Gal. 3:19; Acts 3:22-26); Jonah (Matt. 12:40); David (Ezek. 37:24; Luke 1:32, etc.); Solomon (2 Sam. 7); Zerubbabel
and Joshua (Zech. 3, 4; Hag. 2:23).
2. Transactions or events:
the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark (1 Pet. 3:20);
the redemption from Egypt and its passover-memorial (Luke 22:15, 16; 1 Cor. 5:7;
the exodus (Matt. 2:15);
the passage through the Red Sea,
the giving of manna,
Moses veiling of his face while the law was read;
the water flowing from the smitten rock;
the serpent lifted up for healing in the wilderness,
and some other things that befell the Israelites there (1 Cor. 10; John 3:14, 5:33; Rev. 2:17).[24]
Indeed, were it otherwise, nothing could be more arbitrary and inexplicable than this Scriptural typology. For, what is there to distinguish the characters and events, which Scripture has thus particularized, from a multitude of others, to which the typical element might equally have been supposed to belong?
Is there anything on the face of the inspired record to make us look on them in a singular light, and attribute to them a significance altogether
peculiar respecting the future affairs of God's kingdom? S