|
| Conference & Stuff | | Date Created: Oct 03, 2004, 10:48 PM |
My wife and I spent last week in Moscow, ID, at Christ Church's Ministers Conference. This was my second year to lecture at that conference. Last year I was alone; but this time my wife was able to join me. We had a wonderful time. This portion of Idaho is beautiful this time of year or perhaps it was just a great change of pace and scenery for us. I've added a few photos from the fields surrounding Moscow to my little photo gallery. I wish I would have had more time to take a few more shots.
The conference was on biblical typology. Peter made a brilliant point at the beginning of his second lecture. It seems so obvious now that he's said it that I wonder why I didn't see it before. How many times have we heard that we should never establish or seek to establish any "doctrine" on the basis of typological readings but rather doctrine should be built up from non-typological, "literal" passages. Typology should only be used to bolster doctrines that we have learn from non-symbolic, propositional passages of Scripture.
Although this is taken for common sense in certain circles, it is totally unworkable. Where are the literal, non-typological passages in the New Testament? Where is the literal, non-symbolic passage that describes who Jesus is? Or what he has done? Even the names "Jesus" and "Christ" can only be understood against the backdrop of the Hebrew Scriptures. They are typological descriptions of our Lord. If a passage calls Jesus "the Son of God" then we must understand the OT background if we are to get the meaning of the phrase. "Son of God" is taken from titles of the kings of Israel. The designation Son calls up associations from Genesis to Malachi. The reader is expected to know this background. Indeed, apart from a knowledge of the narrative of the history of God's dealings with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., one cannot enter into the fullness of the meaning of the title "Son of God." Typology is necessarily involved.
The Hebrew Scriptures give us the symbols and story necessary for understanding the person and work of Jesus. When the Apostles describe the work of Jesus using sacrificial terminology that too is typology. Whatever proposition or assertion Paul might make about what Jesus did for his people, he always uses language that is heavily charged with typological significance and can only be understood against the backdrop of Israel's history and rituals. That's typology, folks. There's no way to get around typology, no way to establish "doctrine" by finding some non-typological, literal description in the New Testament. They don't exist. By passing typology is impossible. |
|
