5 comments on “Reinterpretation or Typology?

  1. Thanks for this Patrick. I was struck by Coxe’s helpful comments on John 19:36 and Exodus 12:46 as an example of divinely inspired typological interpretation of the OT (page 76 in Coxe). Comparing those two passages are very helpful in grappling with how to interpret the OT. I would love to hear Waymeyer’s thoughts on those two texts. Exodus 12:46 does not appear as a prophecy in its original context, and yet John says it was a prophecy of Christ.


  2. Thanks Brandon. While I can’t answer for Mr. Waymeyer, I would suppose he’d see those passages in pretty much the same way we do. Dispensationalists certainly recognize the presence of typology in the Old Testament; they just don’t like to apply it to explicit prophecy, even when the New Testament tells us the typological significance of a given OT text.

    Judging by his article paired with his gracious response in the comments on the original post, it seems he views the typological interpretation as somewhat of a middle road between the “reinterpretation” view and his “analogical” view. I would argue that the differences between the three are very significant (obviously; look at where it takes our respective interpretations of redemptive history!), but finding points of agreement with our brothers is good too.


  3. Pingback: Weekly Roundup: Everything Else That We Didn’t Get Around To Posting | The Confessing Baptist

  4. Thanks Patrick,
    I appreciate your teaching in response to Mr Waymeyers article. I went to the Masters college and pretty much Learned Christ from John Macaurthur after being saved at the age of 24. Since then , I have been sitting under Pastor John Piper as my local Church. Just recently I have been studying Covenant theology by listening to Ligonier and all the mighty men of God affiliated with RC. Sproul. To get to the point, I’m having a hard time choosing between the 3 best available Theologies because i believe they are all very closely related. Covenant – New Covenant – or Progressive Dispensationalism which is the correct lable for Mr Weymeyer and John Macaurthur. Calling them Darby dispensationalists is not quite accurate. I’m interested in hearing your critiques on New Covenant Theology as well as Progressive Dispensationalism compared to Puritian Covenant Theology.


  5. Hi Nic! Thanks for reading and commenting! Ligonier produces many edifying materials. However, generally, the view of Covenant Theology they will present is that of the Westminster Confession of Faith and is paedobaptistic in nature. I personally subscribe to the view of the covenants espoused by the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and its composers. For starters, I recommend checking out the site I mentioned in the post, 1689federalism.com. It has helpful videos and charts that compare and contrast “1689 Federalism” with New Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism (in general, which would include Progressive), and traditional Paedobaptist Covenant Theology. The Books section recommends some really great resources as well. Two websites I recommend on the subject are Sam Renihan’s “Particular Voices” blog at pettyfrance.wordpress.com and Brandon Adams’ “Contrast” blog at contrast2.wordpress.com. Sam’s features many extended quotes from the Particular Baptists of the 17th century, and Brandon’s has some really helpful posts concerning John Owen, New Covenant Theology, the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, and more. And stick around here! This site needs more commenters!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s