# Gen 30 skeptics question



## nwink (Jun 17, 2013)

"37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted."

How do you understand this passage in terms of Jacob's use of the sticks? I've heard some skeptics argue before that this shows an unscientific understanding of reproduction. But then again, it could just be the means God used in this instance. Just curious for anyone's thoughts on this matter.


----------



## kappazei (Jun 17, 2013)

Ahh, yes, the relationship between skeptics and the bible...This is what ends up happening; Skeptics hold up a reference in the bible that science of the day hasn't caught on to. yet and the Lord allows their mockery of the bible to go on for what seems like an intolerable time. Then one day, a scientific discovery is made that proves that the bible was right all along! Examples of this is things like existence of Sodom, the Hittites, practicality of circumcision, etc., One day, someone in a lab will figure out that you can manipulate the colouring of goats artificially...but the skeptics will just go on and on doubting until it's too late for them. But the Lord will save a remenant, as usual.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2013)

Forgive me if I am being simplistic, but I think this is answered by the next Chapter in Genesis 31:

4And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,

5And said unto them, I see your father's countenance, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father hath been with me.

6And ye know that with all my power I have served your father.

7And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.

8If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked.

9Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

10And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled.

11And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

12And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.

13I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

------
It seems to me that the "sticks" were the means by which God accomplished his objective as stated in 31:9 of providing restitution to Jacob for his mistreatment by Laban.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2013)

What follows below is an outtake of a sermon I preached back in 2007 (it's actually "point 2" of 3). I've also preached it since in 2011, and it probably sounded a bit different (having shortened the whole sermon), but the basic idea remains the same.

In short, any treatment of Jacob that ignores the fact that he was an astute husbandman, is moronic. The big difference between Jacob and Laban is that the former has a "biblical" worldview, and the latter has a pagan and "magical" one. And it is Jacob's awareness of his "advantage" in this way of seeing reality that ultimately brings him out on top in this *Battle of the Schemers*.

_Verse 27, look how Laban replies: “If I have found favor in your eyes…” I have to stop here. This is a manner of speaking to someone whom you recognize as having some advantage over you. In the mouth of Laban, this phrase is nothing if not disingenuous, and more like mocking. In Laban’s own eyes, not only has Jacob not found favor (or he would have honored his request, and sent him out with handsome presents), Jacob is contemptible. Laban fully intends to manipulate Jacob once again. To continue, “I have divined that Jehovah has blessed me on your account.” My gods, my magics, my resources have clued me in, Jake.

Now right here, you need to see the fact that Laban does not have God Almighty in mind when he says this. This is nothing more than taking his name in vain, and merely insulting Jehovah. Because he’s talking as if Jacob’s blessing is little more than a “charm”, that the Lord God is some kind of good-luck fairy if he’s anything, as if this deity had not taken note of every slight and injury Laban inflicted on his elect—as if Jehovah hadn’t even noticed as Laban prospered himself at Jacob’s expense. What Laban is too thick to realize is that Jehovah has been setting him up. God knew that if he gave Laban 14 years of luxury, at the end he wouldn’t be able to resist the fat, wiggly worm with the giant hook in it. And once more he invites Jacob to name his wages. This evil man will not send Jacob away, or let him walk, or give him his family. Time to negotiate!

Jacob at first continues (vv.29f) to press Laban to release him and the family, pointing out (with a believing heart) that yes, indeed! Jehovah had answered his own promise and blessed Jacob exceedingly and Laban had been the one prospered, taking everything—now all Jacob asks for is not to depart empty-handed. But Laban is unmoved. The family isn’t going anywhere. But as I said, I don’t think Jacob was caught off-guard by Laban’s reply, and he had probably given quite a bit of thought to his own offer. Laban thought he was doing the manipulation of wimpy, predictable Jacob. But Jacob had sized up Laban, and the days of deceit were over.

Jacob’s plan comes to light in stages. The first stage comes in the form of yet another apparently unassuming request. He suggests that instead of money, Laban agree to give him the more rare and uncommon goats and sheep (by color). The creation of such a small, separate flock will not make Jacob immediately self-sufficient. Indeed, in return for this gift Jacob will not seek departure, but will stay and continue to do as he has done for the last 14 years and tend the prospering herds of Laban. Jacob’s flock will only increase by the beasts born yearly which are similarly marked. Laban can see no downside to this arrangement. He fairly leaps at the offer (v.34). He himself separates the flock (he doesn’t trust Jacob to do it, not because Jacob has ever been dishonest, but because dishonest people are the most distrustful people). He then gives Jacob’s flock over to his own sons to watch, and separates them from Jacob by 3 days journey.

Jacob’s plan is being revealed in stages, and the next part of the plan has puzzled many. What is with the sticks in the water? As we read, Jacob takes tree limbs, peels some of the bark from them, and either stands them upright, or floats them in the watering troughs, in any case he placed them before the animals, and it was here that the animals bred. On the face of it, it almost appears as though the animals gave birth according to what they were looking at. So what are we to make of this?

I would like to suggest to you that what “appears” to be the case, is exactly that—it “appears” to be the case by design, by JACOB’S design! Yes, friends, what we are witnessing is Jacob’s last deception. This is his final “trick” that we read he ever pulled on anyone. Yes, later he flees from Laban under cover. Yes, he uses a ploy of a sort to mollify (he hopes!) his brother. But here, here he pulls a fast one, he plays a trick on wicked Laban. What kind of trick? Jacob knows that Laban is an idolater, he’s into magic and divination. All does is he gives stupid Laban something for his blinded, superstitious eyes to see: he sees Jacob putting sticks with the bark stripped off to show white spots in front of the mating animals, and lo and behold! Out come spotted, multicolored offspring! Lots and lots of them! More than ever before! OOOOO! It must be MAGIC!

The sticks were as effective in producing herds for Jacob as the mandrakes were in producing children for Rachel—perfectly useless. Except in this case, the props served another purpose by which they were very effective. They distracted Laban, making him think that Jacob is using such demonic devices as he is familiar with. This, after all, is about all he gave Jehovah credit for accomplishing up to this point. Why not let him continue to believe this was the source of Jacob’s personal advantage? Call it misdirection if you will.

Meanwhile, the third stage or presentation of Jacob’s design to get free of Laban’s clutches comes in the following verses, vv. 40-42. There Jacob’s real animal husbandry skills, in were working behind the scenes to build his own flocks at Laban’s expense. There we read of Jacob’s techniques of cross breeding (based upon the genes) and selective breeding (based on the strength or health of the animals). Jacob didn’t need a microscope, or control groups, or a college degree to understand laws of reproduction. What he had was a mindset governed not by divination, but by the fear of the Lord. This gave him a practical advantage over Laban in this final battle of wits.

Thus, Jacob’s knowledge of Laban’s herds, and the skills he gained toiling ceaselessly for his heartless father-in-law, in the heat and cold, suffering patiently for his goal of gaining a wife, and returning to his own father, and the land of promise, was now in God’s providence, producing tremendous material prosperity. [read v.43] The promise of the Lord found in 28:14 was being fulfilled, as Moses is careful to note. The term “exceeding prosperous” is noted in some of your margins as “broke forth exceedingly”. Which is the same terms used by the Lord in the dream at the ladder where is was said, literally, “you will break through to the west, east, north, and south.”_​
I will not argue strenuously with someone else who thinks that Jacob is following some mystical practice, while he trusts God in fact. I just think that is unnecessary, if what he's doing is all about fooling Laban, by using that man's superstitions against him.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 18, 2013)

I pretty much agree with Bruce's take above, except I'd add that as a former rancher and herd breeding manager, one shouldn't underestimate the power of visual aids among the hired help.

I go along with the "fake magic" idea, but I always thought the colored sticks were there sort of as a reminder to those filling the troughs to make sure the cows with the proper markings got the best feed, which led to them being more likely to conceive, etc.

In other words, I read between the lines and see some high-level breeding practices going on that most at the time didn't understand.

I have always held Jacob up as my personal example of a cowman's cowman.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 21, 2013)

Yes. I'd read something similar, except the author believed that God had revealed to Jacob that he should choose the streaked and spotted cattle because God knew about dominant genes before Gregor Mendel did. 

Meanwhile Jacob's faith in God wasn't perfect, and although he trusted God, he followed a "belt and braces" approach, and supplemented God's "pre-scientific" scientific advice with his own superstition.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 21, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What follows below is an outtake of a sermon I preached back in 2007 (it's actually "point 2" of 3). I've also preached it since in 2011, and it probably sounded a bit different (having shortened the whole sermon), but the basic idea remains the same.
> 
> In short, any treatment of Jacob that ignores the fact that he was an astute husbandman, is moronic. The big difference between Jacob and Laban is that the former has a "biblical" worldview, and the latter has a pagan and "magical" one. And it is Jacob's awareness of his "advantage" in this way of seeing reality that ultimately brings him out on top in this *Battle of the Schemers*.
> 
> ...



Does the explanation above seem to minimize or eliminate the need for the supernatural/miraculous, and does this above explanation thus make Jacob's prosperity his own doing instead of God's doing?

Here are some possible objections to your view; how would you respond:

1 It removes the miraculous. That is to say , God had no part in it. 

For instance, I have heard that the burning bush wasn't really burning, it was just a bright red bush, and God really didn't part the red sea, they just went through shallow water. But miracles do happen. Isn't this what we have here with the rods?

2 In the above explanation, credit was given to Jacob. But, God did the prospering from the very start. In the next chapter 31: 9 Jacob tells his wives that it was God all along doing this. Here is where we are told how Jacob knew to pick the colored animals, and probably during the dream he also was told to use the Rods. Now, Jacob did have a responsibility to continue the Work. But how did Jacob get colored animals when he started only with Laban's white ones ? Here is where God started the Work. This was not a trick that Jacob pulled to get even with Laban, it is God recompensing Laban for his treatment of Jacob 31:12 . 

3 In the above explanation, nothing was ever said about the meaning of the Rods themselves. It seems to me that the explanation above allows that Jacob could have used anything. Because he was just trying to make Laban think he was using magic. But it seems that using the rods was important.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 21, 2013)

The rods weren't' mentioned by the Angel of the Lord, but the science was. Bruce's explanation or the one I read, remind the sceptics that God is the Lord of science as well as miracles.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 22, 2013)

Perg, are these real objections, or hypothetical?



Pergamum said:


> Here are some possible objections to your view; how would you respond:
> 
> 1 It removes the miraculous. That is to say , God had no part in it.



God has a part in everything, nothing excepted. He's the God of Providence.

There's nothing in ch.30 (the immediate context) that explicitly tells us what Jacob is doing; so any interpretation demands close reading and trying to figure out what's going on.

If someone says, "Well, we just don't know what's going on until we get to Gen.31:10 in the next chapter where everything is made clear, let's read:"10 In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the goats that mated with the flock were striped, spotted, and mottled. 11 Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'Here I am!' 12 And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you." 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.'"​
I think it's obvious from v13 that this dream did not take place six years prior, when Jacob began working past the 14yrs of bride-price service. The description seems to be an expansion on v3, "Then the LORD said to Jacob, "'Return to the land of your fathers and to your kindred, and I will be with you,'" which is his signal to get-out-of-Dodge. So, where in this passage do we read *what, exactly,* God was "doing" the last 6yrs?

God has been looking after Jacob, that's for sure. But what does this verse actually _say?_ Is this evidence that God HAD told Jacob what to do 6yrs earlier, or HAD told him what animals to choose? Or is this a witness after-the-fact that he had been superintending Jacob's labors the whole time, since both the report and the dream seem to be 6yrs after he bargained with Laban for a flock of his own? One thing for sure isn't in these verses: divine instruction on putting sticks in the water.

The whole passage does not explain the sticks in the water--it only tells us the fact: Jacob put them there. It give us that fact: the animals rutted where the sticks were situated. Fact: Jacob ensured that "stronger" animals he chose conceived "among the rods," Gen.30:41. Fact: he did not breed the "feebler" stock around those rods, v42.

God was with Jacob, and powerfully. Where in the text does it say that he was with him "miraculously," rather than providentially? Some of the older interpreters merely express the notion that ewes naturally produce colors in their young according to what they look at. For me, born in the 20th century and having H.S. and College Biology, that seems naive. The text plainly tells me that Jacob was intelligently practicing selective breeding... and that he had sticks in the water.

Either 1) he thought it was good animal husbandry, a natural thing. Or
2) he thought it was a folk-notion, a superstitious thing. Or
3) he believed God told him to put the sticks there, a supernatural thing. Or
4) he wanted to give superstitious Laban something to drive him nuts.

Laban is a sneak and a spy. Laban changes Jacob's wages 10X (31:7-8) in a frantic effort to derail Jacob's increase, and get his own herds to increase. But Jacob's keep increasing, while Laban's do not. It didn't matter what Laban chooses--solids, stripes, or checkerboard for Jacob. I don't think Jacob used the same sticks or maybe even the same tricks each time. He just gave Laban something to look at (that's my opinion).





Pergamum said:


> For instance, I have heard that the burning bush wasn't really burning, it was just a bright red bush, and God really didn't part the red sea, they just went through shallow water. But miracles do happen. Isn't this what we have here with the rods?



I don't see any valid comparison between the miracles of the burning bush and the Red Sea, and Jacob's oddessy with Laban.





Pergamum said:


> 2 In the above explanation, credit was given to Jacob. But, God did the prospering from the very start. In the next chapter 31: 9 Jacob tells his wives that it was God all along doing this. Here is where we are told how Jacob knew to pick the colored animals, and probably during the dream he also was told to use the Rods. Now, Jacob did have a responsibility to continue the Work. But how did Jacob get colored animals when he started only with Laban's white ones ? Here is where God started the Work. This was not a trick that Jacob pulled to get even with Laban, it is God recompensing Laban for his treatment of Jacob 31:12.



You say I've given "credit" to Jacob (if he knows a thing or two about shepherding, isn't that commendable?). In the first place, with all due respect, I explained how the outtake was one point of a three-point outline, dealing with this particular question. And secondly, it's pretty unfair criticism, since the hand of God is noted throughout, even for that. Third, the query in the OP has directly to do with unbeliever's objection caused by a prima-facie, "apparent" reading of the text. My proposal has the advantage of reckoning with the "apparentness" head-on, while pointing to overlooked details that are actually present in the text, indicating highly developed husbandry skills, which undermine the accusation that Jacob relied here on folklore and superstition.

Next, you've just gone with "probably." Well, you can have your conjecture(s); personally, I think my interpretation sticks quite close to the actual facts that are presented in the text and indisputable. Mine fits with the whole saga of Jacob's sojourn with Laban, with his being that terrible man's victim for as long as it took, until he was freed by God (and went exodus, plundering his uncle in the process). I think we have an excellent case here for the means of ordinary Providence, but with special blessing for God's elect, and special disappointment for Laban. In any case, I haven't left God out of the equation.

As for Laban's flocks: they may have been separated out, but (biologically speaking) they began as a mixed gene-pool. So, the genotype/phenotype reality is already present. Jacob is many, many decades old by the time of these events; he has a tons of experience with these very animals. Furthermore, if you go back to ch.29, we read how various flocks came together at times for watering (when we're told the breeding takes place); so there were surely reasonable opportunities for interbreeding, if not within the clan's flocks then with others.




Pergamum said:


> 3 In the above explanation, nothing was ever said about the meaning of the Rods themselves. It seems to me that the explanation above allows that Jacob could have used anything. Because he was just trying to make Laban think he was using magic. But it seems that using the rods was important.



Well, I don't know how to address this objection other than to dismiss it. What is the proposed "meaning" of the Rods themselves? Do they have some spiritual import not explicitly stated in this text, but hinted at or explained elsewhere? How is this not an "objection" to ANY treatment of this passage? The rods were plain branches of local trees, peeled and marked, and they were noticeable to the animals, and doubtless to human observers. They *are* what was used in this event--that's what Scripture says, and I don't question that.

This "rebuttal" is like saying it is irreverent to think David "scribbling" on the doors of Gath's gate (1Sam.21:13) was gibberish, that if it wasn't Ps.23 in Hebrew, "you're saying he might as well have been writing anything!" Or Jesus writing _with his finger_ on the floor of the Temple (Jn.8:8) must have been intelligible words and sentences, otherwise he could have used anything, like a stick...

Interpretive extras do not carry the same weight as explicit statements, or strong inferences from the text. This final criticism seems like a parting hand-grenade. Like, "You're wrong, and so liberal too! Do you even believe in inspiration?"


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 22, 2013)

Thanks Bruce. I am dealing with a friend from my sending church that presents these two objections above ((a) removing or minimizing the miraculous, and (b) giving God the credit, instead of Jacob) in reference to most explanations for Genesis 30. He believes that he can find some sort of type of Christ in the rods themselves (thus his motive for making sure that the rods are seen as very important and not merely a minor detail)... though I cannot seem to see his point of view.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 22, 2013)

Thanks, Pergy. I wondered if maybe it was someone else' specific criticism.

Not that I care if another person has a different take; I appreciate reading other people's views, because I think it possible I might learn something. My defensiveness is purely a reaction to having my care with the text or my belief in supernatural engagement challenged; not on merit or what the text literally contains--but seemingly because I eschewed another "sanctioned" view, because I sought a more complete interpretation that accounts for more particulars. The approach I took is not as _eliminative_ or _presumptive_ as certain common (pious) readings seem to me to be.

There are people I greatly respect--living and dead--who take other views. I will never accuse the honorable people who hold or have held them of insufficient attention to detail, just for disagreeing with me.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 22, 2013)

Thanks Bruce. 

Finally, can you or anybody else find any sort of type of Christ or Gospel foreshadowing in this story? This is the last point of my friend at church; that the rods somehow must represent Jesus working by supernatural means to produce spiritual heirs. He says there must be a type of Christ in every Old Testament story and so there must also be one here as well. I told him I didn't know myself but that I would ask around.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 22, 2013)

Jacob is a multi-valent type. He is national Israel's archetype, in that he is the immediate fountain of the flowering of the people into twelve tribes. More pages cover Jacob's life beginning to end (1/2 Genesis) than cover nearly anyone else' in Scripture, notable exceptions being Moses, David, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In this, he is the archetypal "covenant child."

Moreover, Jacob's flight out of "bondage" to Laban, and to the Promised Land foreshadows Israel's escape out of Egypt, going to the same Land. And we should all be aware of how national Israel prefigures Christ, for as the NT reminds us, the words: "Out of Egypt I called my son," is not only a prophetic look backwards (by Hosea), but also a clue that national Israel itself is a type of Christ. Christ recapitulates Israel's movements in many ways, spending time in Egypt, tempted in the wilderness, etc. Jesus Christ is Israel reduced to One Man.

Jacob is also "Israel reduced to one man," in that he preexists the rest of his natural seed, who are together the nucleus of the chosen people. Jacob is thus a type of Christ. Like most of the OT types, he is not a type down to the last detail, nor is he always a type in the same way. When he sins, he is a negative example--Christ will spectacularly succeed where Jacob spectacularly fails. Where Jacob succeeds, Christ will superlatively succeed.



**************************
There is painful artificiality to the idea that regardless of the OT incident, no matter how small or trivial, one can make a leap to the obvious (or not-so-obvious) Christ-antitype. Jacob's whole life is lived as "God's Elect Man." In going to Haran (whence, paradoxically he is driven, being forced out of the Promised Land because of his unworthy behavior), God 's Elect nevertheless is *coming to his own* people, he is full of the *Spirit*, and seeking a *bride*. The "type of Christ" is writ large--indeed HUGE--upon Jacob's life.

It is problematic, however, to isolate a single episode of Jacob's experience (in this case his final six-year employment with his Uncle), and basically by a kind of "allegory" draw out a type from a particular series of actions. When someone says that Jacob is "somehow" (no, how exactly, please) using rods to supernaturally produce goats, and the goats represent people specifically heirs, and Jacob represents Jesus, and Jesus is active to supernaturally produce spiritual heirs--this is _allegorical_ interpretation. It's pious, but it isn't compelling to a responsible exegete. The Reformation freed us from this sort of thing, without meaning to break us off from typological awareness.

The approach is fraught with overwhelming problems. Besides the correlations being arbitrary and up to the interpreter, Jacob is apparently being viewed here not as I'd say he is intended mainly to be seen in this episode--from the natural (as opposed to the heavenly) side: a man of patient faith, who trusts God to accomplish his salvation. Rather, the allegorizer want to see him here as an agent of supernature, "producing" spiritual fruit. And not only fruit, but heirs--as if the flocks were somehow a close equivalent of his family. Or is his family symbolic of "the nation of Israel," and the goat herds symbolic of "the Gentiles?" See how easy that was? Now I'm an allegorizer.



*********************
On the other hand, if Jacob, like Christ, is "plundering the strong man's house," *Mt.12:29*, then he works by faith using the means at his disposal to accomplish that end. But we have never yet made a textual connection between those sticks and the blessings. We have chronology, but we don't have causation. We have an "appearance" that is left textually ambiguous.

And the one cause for Jacob's increase we can be sure of is natural means (breeding), which produces supernatural results in God's providence. This series of causation is closer to the Work of Jesus, who used miracles but didn't favor them, *Mt.12:39*; and whose powerful lasting effects on men were the result of his Teaching the Word (a natural means), through which the Spirit changed hearts and raised dead souls to eternal life.

What purpose the sticks? The answer is not on the surface of the text (unless one jumps from unexplained presence to causation, which happens to be a logical fallacy). If it were, the answer would long ago have been obvious. Maybe it is the logical fallacy that is MEANT to be "obvious."

The answer isn't obvious, which makes me probe for a subtler purpose--as subtle as the _schemers_ engaged between chs.29-31 in a contest over who will be the "heir" of the blessings of Abraham. Laban tries for 20yrs to steal from Jacob what is rightfully his, and in the end he loses everything. God takes it all away, and gives it to his Elect Man.



*******************
Final thought: another reason I don't like the idea that the increase in Jacob's flocks is all about Jesus producing spiritual heirs--this interpretation tries to *work mankind into a more prominent part in the story somehow*. This is a tendency we have: to make the story of Jesus _really_ the story about how Jesus makes ME important. Jacob is important in the story thus interpreted, because the _really_ important activity is the breeding, the results.

Here an episode in a story that is INTENTLY FOCUSED on on Jacob, and how he is besting Laban by God's grace (isn't there plenty there about Christ vs. Satan?). His family is entirely excluded from discussion, until they are grabbed at the end for an escape they can't do anything but get carried along for. And yet, in the midst of all that, some interpreters seem unsatisfied unless they have found a mention of us in the story. Isn't the message of the Bible _*as it touches on us*_ that we only have significance "in Christ?" We are not "in" this story, except as an afterthought, except as we are grabbed at the very end of it (in the family of the Elect One) and toted off into the sunset.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 22, 2013)

Bruce,



> There is painful artificiality to the idea that regardless of the OT incident, no matter how small or trivial, one can make a leap to the obvious (or not-so-obvious) Christ-antitype.



Yes, I agree. 

I have teasingly told this man he was a "hyper-typer" before, but I wanted to hear other input before I was too dismissive. Thanks so much.


----------

