John Ronning ronning at nis.za
Sun Nov 14 10:09:15 EST 1999

Jim West wrote:
> At 10:32 PM 11/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >Moses > Elijah is a nice example.
> >
> So who is a type of whom?

Obviously, in historical typology the one that comes first
is the prototype for the one that comes later.
> 40 days without eating for
> >both of them, they see God on Mt. Sinai, where they receive
> >a commission which they themselves do not fulfill, but which
> >must be fulfilled by their successor who is in that respect
> >greater than them.  Moses is the covenant mediator, is
> >commissioned to tear down the Canaanite altars, kill the
> >Canaanites -
> Huh?  Where exactly is Moses commissioned to kill canaanites? And when does
> he (or Joshua, if that is what you are implying) tear down canaanite altars?

Before asking all these questions you could have at least
given a cursory reading of the two chapters in question
(Exodus 34 and 1 Kings 19)?

Exodus 34:11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out
before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites,
Hivites and Jebusites. (if there's any doubt about how
that's to be accomplished, see Deuteronomy 9:3 But be
today that the Lord your God is the one who goes across
ahead of you
like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he 
will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and
annihilate them quickly, as the Lord has promised you.)

Exodus 34:13 (to Moses) "Break down their altars, smash
their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles." (etc.
etc. etc.)

> > Elijah complains that Israel has broken the
> >covenant, torn down the Lord's altars and killed the Lord's
> >prophets, and so he is commissioned to destroy the
> >Israelites (except for the remnant that has not kissed
> >Baal).
> Again, huh?  Which Israelites does Elijah kill?  Are you assuming the
> prophets of baal were israelites?  If so, what leads you to that assumption?

Again, why didn't you at least look at 1 Kings 19 before
letting all these questions fly?
1 Kings 19:17 "It shall come about, the one who escapes from
the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death, and the one
who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall put to
death.  18 "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees
that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not
kissed him."

Do you disagree that the victims in view here are

> >Note that this typological relationship between Moses
> >and Elijah would cast the king opposing Elijah (i.e. Ahab)
> >in the role of Pharaoh who opposed Moses, and would cast
> >Israel as a largely Canaanite (morally speaking) nation.
> >
> typological relationship?  i dont think so.  at best we have one modeled on
> another but that hardly merits the title of typological.

The relationship is typological in the sense that there is a
pattern (tupos) that is repeated from one to the other.  I
don't see a special "merit" required of such patterns to
earn this common sense definition.
> >Moses cannot carry out his commission because he is
> >prevented from entering the land because of his episode of
> >unbelief,
> unbelief?  is the smiting of the rock ever called unbelief in the HB?
Num 20:12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you
did not believe in me to honor me as holy in the sight of
the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the
land I give them."

> >so his successor Joshua does it.  God begins to
> >exalt him at the Jordan River (Josh 3:7 "This day I will
> >begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may
> >know that just as I have been with Moses, I will be with
> >you").  Before Elijah is taken up to heaven, he reverses the
> >steps of Joshua to cross over the Jordan on dry ground, so
> >he departs from the same side of the Jordan as Moses was on
> >when he died.  Like Joshua, his successor Elisha is then
> >exalted in the miracle of the crossing of the dry Jordan,
> >and Elisha goes on fulfilling the commission of Elijah.
> >
> again, interesting parallels; but not typology.  remember the days of
> "parallelomania"?  And now "pan-deuteronomism"?  

Is that anything like pan-hasmonean-mania?

> it seems that you are
> seeing types where there are none.

It seems that you are not seeing types where they obviously

> so where do the types stop or start?
> what are their limits?  how do you decide what is a type and what is not?
> what are your criteria of determination of a type?

By careful study, I guess.  Or should I just save myself the
trouble and ask you for your pronouncements?
> >It's interesting that for a believing Israelite the names
> >Joshua and Elisha mean the same thing because Eli = jah.
> >
> not at all.  how are you deriving elisha? el-yashai?
back to kindergarten Hebrew.
Elisha = [my] God is salvation
Joshua = Yhwh is salvation
Elijah = [my] God is Yhwh ergo Elisha = Joshua

> >The NT extends this typology to the pair John (the Baptist)
> >> Jesus, of whom John says "he who comes after me is greater
> >than me."  Like Joshua and Elisha, Jesus (same name) is
> >exalted
> now i think you see the danger latent in seeing all kinds of types where
> there are none.

> >Like Samuel Clemmens said, history doesn't repeat itself,
> >but it does rhyme (seems especially true of biblical
> >history).
> >
> well since the bible isnt history the clemens citation isnt really apropos.

On the contrary, biblical history is still being repeated
> again, my central question and that which mosts interests me- where do you
> NOT see types at work?

If someone made the point that there is a lot of figurative
language in the Bible, then gave a few examples, then
someone else came back with "where do you NOT see figurative
language in the Bible?" - I would not regard that as an
intelligent question (nor yours).



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list