Typology

Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun Nov 14 20:28:18 EST 1999


At 05:09 PM 11/14/99 +0200, you wrote:

>
>Obviously, in historical typology the one that comes first
>is the prototype for the one that comes later.

Ahah.  Now you have decided to talk about prototypes.  They are not the same
thing as types however.

>> 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)?

You are assuming !) that I have not read the sources, and 2) that my
questions are ill placed.  However, since you made the assertion it is
proper that you support your assertions.

>
>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
>assured


Ummm... It seems that you need to read the sources- because its not Moses
who does these things but God.  Thus, your use of this text is illegitimate
for it does not say that Moses would do any such thing.

 
>today that the Lord your God is the one who goes across
>ahead of you

Exactly- so why did you attribute it to Moses in the first place?

>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.)

Again, since Moses never entered the land how exactly was he to do this.
Again, your citation does not support your notion that Moses did these
things- for he did not.

>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
>Israelites?
>

Yes I do disagree.  There are folk killed- but they arent israelites.

>The relationship is typological in the sense that there is a

You cant go around redefining standard terminology at your whim to make the
evidence fit your perspective.

>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.
>> 
>> 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."

Its one thing to say he didnt believe God.  Its another altogether to say
that his smiting of the rock was an act of unbelief.  You are splicing
together a whole slew of things in order to squish them into your
typological presuppositions.

>> 
>> again, interesting parallels; but not typology.  remember the days of
>> "parallelomania"?  And now "pan-deuteronomism"?  
>
>Is that anything like pan-hasmonean-mania?

*chortle*.

>
>> it seems that you are
>> seeing types where there are none.
>
>It seems that you are not seeing types where they obviously
>exist.

I see we are going to have to agree to disagree about this.

>> 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?
>> 

No need to be testy.  I just want you to prove your case without resorting
to blustering and overgeneralizations.


>On the contrary, biblical history is still being repeated
>today.

???  What can you possibly mean by this?

>
>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).

You still have not answered.  You are merely being evasive.

Best,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
jwest at highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list