“And as he prayed, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his clothing was white and glistening.” (Luke 9:29, King James 2000 Bible)
The Tabernacle was covered in three layers: linen, red-dyed ramskin, and a third layer of tachash. What’s tachash? The word is a mystery, and there have been many suggestions concerning its meaning, from unicorn to dolphin. But perhaps that mystery has now been solved. And the glistening solution is nothing like you’d imagine in a million years.
Priests and Levites of All Nations
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
In this final post on the structure of Ephesians, we will cover stage 6 (Conquest/Atonement) and stage 7 (Glorification/Booths). (Unfortunately, I can’t refer to them as cycles because there are 8 cycles, as previously discussed.)
A common interpretation of the “armor of God” relies on the assumption that Paul is using the kit of a Roman soldier as a metaphor. This shows how fragmented is our understanding of the Bible, an organic text which is not fragmented at all, and not reliant upon the various contemporary cultures anywhere near as much as we assume. The armor in Ephesians 6 is that of a priest, a priest with a sword, fulfilling his guard duty at the gate of God.
or Why Ministers Must Be Men
My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.
Doug Wilson has a great little book with the title, Why Ministers Must Be Men. He demonstrates from Scripture that ministers must be not only male but manly, that is, courageous and self-sacrificial, ruling out both misogyny and machismo in the process. I believe we can also find evidence for his case in the very structure of the Bible. The proof boils down to the question, “What is a man in the created order?” That is, what is a man physically, and what is he to be in the very process of things?
“Let the children
…..come to me,
……….and do not hinder them,
…..for to such belongs
the kingdom of God.”
Jesus is often pictured with a child or children. His love for children is used as evidence for infant baptism. After all, aren’t we bringing our infants to Jesus in paedobaptism and paedocommunion?
“…and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand.” (Exodus 24:10-11)
Well, I’ve been blustering on about art and “intuition” in generalities for about a week now. Fluffy generalities are exactly the kind of thing that annoys me about many Biblical scholars, and I reckon it annoys God, too. They never seem to get down to specifics, and He is very specific. This shows in His architecture, and also in His literary architecture. So, here, in a section of Matthew 14, is a chance for me to get specific and show you what is possible with this “killer hermeneutic.” 
After a brief look at the structure of this passage the other day, I thought I’d spend some more time on it. A closer analysis has revealed an even greater beauty than I expected. (I have briefly referenced the order of words in the Greek to avoid any great missteps, so it may not be perfect, but it’s close.) Much learning hath indeed made me mad but I hope you’ll take a few minutes to see this passage through my eyes.
Bow ties are cool. Fezzes are cool. But systematic typology is very cool. Try this on…
“So David (Sabbath – Creation)
This post concerns the Covenant-literary structure of 2 Thessalonians 2. The context and audience are first century, but it amazes me how willing we modern Christians are to do intricate hermeneutical acrobatics to avoid the obvious conclusion that the particular “coming” of Christ referred to here was also a first century event – the end of the Old Covenant in AD70.
A reasonably close look at the text makes it inescapable. A very close analysis makes it inexcusable, especially once we are versed in the literary mechanics of the Bible Matrix. Continue reading
1 Peter 2:4-10 | Sermon Notes
Cut and Uncut Stones
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—
Peter’s use of the stone image should bring many Old Testament images to mind:
- the precious stones of Havilah, intended to be mined from the Land to glorify the sanctuary 
- the false stones of Babel (they had brick for stone)
- Jacob’s head on the altar stone, in a deep sleep
- Jacob’s raising of an altar stone in Bethel: “And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”
- Zipporah’s sharp stone of circumcision
- Moses enthroned on a stone at the defeat of Amalek
- Israel’s altars of stone (one stone for each tribe) at Sinai and Carmel
- The precious stones on the breastplate of the High Priest
- The tablets of stone carrying the ten words
- The stones of the “Levitical” house in the city filled with plague
- The stones of judgment, the ground itself as a witness executing transgressors outside the camp
- The black and white stones in the ephod
We have two types of stones: uncut stones (altar, judgment – the Law) and cut, or precious, stones (glory and riches – Grace).
Doug Wilson writes:
“As far as the Jews were concerned, the Bible teaches that because they were born into an Israelite family, circumcised in the covenant on the eighth day, they were attached to the tree. This attachment was an objective historical fact. But the sin and hypocrisy of many of them was also an objective fact, and the Lord of the Orchard consequently removed their branches, and grafted in other branches. Now the interesting thing here is that Paul turns and warns the Gentiles who had been grafted in against the very same sin committed by their fruitful predecessors” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 89).
Pastor Wilson writes that Israel is still the tree, but that the ascended Christ is Israel. I dispute the assumption that “natural branches” are still possible. The tree is now supernatural.