Bully's Blog

More Thoughts on Prophetic Cauldrons

“Out of the frying pan into the fire.”

The structure of Ezekiel follows the “soundwaves” pattern found in a great deal of the Bible, particularly the prophets. The Lord speaks His word as liturgy from the Most Holy Place, it is pre-enacted by the prophet in a new “Holy Place” (from outside the city – see Rags to Robes) in some terrifying judgments as object lessons (see Liturgy as Prophecy), and then the same judgments are played out in greater detail in the “Outer Court.” All three sections are heptamerous, and in these three areas we have Word, Sacrament (the prophet as a kind of new “acting” High Priestly mediator – see How to Read the Prophets), and Government.

The book of Ezekiel begins with this pattern, so we have the prophetic cauldron turn up three times. Each cycle takes us through the Tabernacle speeches (Exodus 25-31) which follow the Creation Week, so this is a process of new Creation for the anointing of Ezekiel and of de-Creation for the old Tabernacle of Solomon’s Temple. It was decayed and ready to vanish away.

Continue reading

Evil Eve: The Harlotry of the First Century sons of Aaron

The Lord “called” Adam as Day 1, giving him one law (light). He divided him as Day 2 and built Eve as a Holy Place, a firmament to be filled with stars (godly offspring). As Day 3 He made a new covenant and married them, the first nearbringing. Adam as the Bronze Altar (dust elevated from the Land) then became the first High Priest, the Table. In his obedience, together they prefigured totus Christus.

Day 4 follows. As Adam represented singular light, Eve was plural light. She was the holy fire on the altar, the glory of Adam. [1] Day 4 is the Lampstand. Day 4 is also the wilderness. If Eve was seduced, it was because Adam’s priesthood was corrupt. There was strange fire on the altar, the biblical theme of harlotry. In the garden, the strange fire was the false lightbearer who filled the “firmament” with darkness.

With that background, look at how this plays out in Daniel 7. It also supports James Jordan’s assertion that the fact that the beast’s body is “feminine” carries some importance. [2] The false church is the body of totus diabolus, the locust swarm gathered as a tabernacle by the fallen head. Daniel seven is the history of the first century church as the Woman in the wilderness. But the faithfulness of the new Adam brought an end to the priesthood of the sons of Aaron.

Continue reading

or There Is No Conscription In Christianity, So Stop Picturing It.

I’m not opposed to apparently weird and wonderful ideas from the Bible (anyone who visits this blog knows that), as long as they can be backed up repeatedly from Scripture. This is inevitably typological, and this is why I take issue with infant baptism. As I have written elsewhere here, the entire Old Testament typological freight train is against it, but I just want to hammer one point here, and I have a silver hammer.

Continue reading

or Filling Up That Which is Lacking

After reading about the Bible’s use of robes as symbols of office (see The Dominion Trap by James B. Jordan), Tim Mitchell commented:

In Bible study we’ve been looking at John, so a few weeks ago was John 13. My Bible translated v.4-5 as “So he got up from the table, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin. Then he began to wash the disciples’ feel, drying them with the towel he had around him.”

So that recalled for me the couple of pages on robe imagery, and it seems to foreshadow what Jesus will do later on very well: He is willing to take off his authority and righteousness, and take on the dirt of our sin.

But then I got a bit unsure, since Jesus then goes on to say “you ought to wash each others’ feet” in v.14 and “Do as I have done to you” in v.15. So if the symbolism applies, how are we also supposed to take other peoples’ sin on us as Jesus did?

Firstly, what a great question. Many New Testament passages become so familiar that we often lose the ability to really think about their ramifications.

The structure of the Last Supper puts this action of Jesus at Atonement, the Laver (Day 6). Jesus is liturgically pre-enacting His role as High Priest. The Adam removed his glorious robes and wore linen for the Day of Covering. Jesus left this in the tomb with our sin on it. But that is not all the High Priest did. He approached the Most Holy twice.

Continue reading

or Daniel’s 70th Week Postponed

“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”  Isaiah 9:2

A great deal of time has been spent on the chronology concerning Daniel’s seventy sevens. Quite frankly, chronology is not my strong point [1], but perhaps the solution for this enigmatic problem is not chronological but theological.

Continue reading

or Theonomy in the Bible

“…instead of Moses and Aaron challenging the powers that be, we have Herodian preachers crying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace. Nathan is not qualified to confront David because Nathan himself has been sleeping around.”

In his post Christianity as Comprehensive Cultural Tribunal?, timsmartt questions the validity of philosophy’s self-appointed role as an unbiased cultural referee and wonders whether Christianity should take that role:

Continue reading

James Jordan’s work on the Jew-Gentile oikoumene set up in Daniel has far reaching implications.1 Peter Leithart writes:

“Yoder argues that from the time of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews developed a proto-”free church” model of community life. True in some respects. Jews didn’t have their own polity. But I’ve got doubts if that’s a fair characterization of Jews in and after the exile.

Continue reading

One major difference between Jordan and other preterists is his identification of Paul’s “man of sin.” Jordan is correct in naming the Herods rather than Nero because he understands biblical typology better.

Continue reading

or Touch Not, Taste Not, Handle Not II

The dietary Laws given to Moses were an expansion of the command given to Adam. It is the self-denial of priestly obedience to God. Adam wasn’t ready for the tree of judicial responsibility (kingdom) but he seized it.

In the greater Bible picture, Israel’s history (from Moses) is this period of priestly obedience. But Jesus came and reversed Adam’s failure. Consequently the dietary laws are revoked, and with greater maturity, the people of God (through the first century death of Israel and her resurrection as the church) now, like Jesus, have the judicial wisdom of the Spirit, and the power to eat unclean things (Gentiles), consume them and make them clean. Only the power of resurrection can enter a room with a corpse in it, touch lepers and feast on Gentile meats and not be made unclean, but instead make the unclean clean by consuming it. This is the power of the New Covenant. 

Continue reading

The Purpose of the Restoration Covenant

“The restoration period is the last era of Israel’s history as the people of God and the climactic period of old covenant. The kingdom of God has grown beyond Israel and spread to the nations, who are the God-appointed protectors of His priestly people. Israel’s loss of independence and submission to Gentile powers was not a backward movement in the kingdom program of God. Abraham had been chosen by God so that through him all the nations of the world could be blessed (Gen. 12:3). In the restoration era, this was fulfilled more than at any other time in Israel’s history. Through the dispersion Jews had spread all over the world and they brought with them the knowledge of the true God.

Continue reading