The systematic typology of the Bible Matrix allows us to follow the structures of the Torah thoughout the rest of the Bible. Here’s something that links the Restoration era with the book of Deuteronomy.
We receive baptism, but is membership of the visible New Covenant body entirely objective? The Old Covenant church, “the Body of Moses,” was Adamic. The Tabernacle was a Babelic tower, a ladder to heaven, laid out prostrate on the ground. The New Covenant Body, the Body of Jesus, is Evian. As a Temple filled with the Spirit of God, it stands upright and walks on the Crystal Sea.
Peter Leithart writes:
“Why so much attention to the pillars of Solomon’s temple in 2 Kings 25? It is likely that these were the last major items left. Ahaz had already dismantled the bronze sea and the water chariots. King after king plundered the temple for bribe money. When Nebuchadnezzar came, not much was left. Perhaps even the ark was among the ‘gold’ items removed earlier.” [1]
Of course, God’s new golden-haired boy got things wrong, as all Adams do when given the opportunity of glorious kingdom. The metal man in his dream (the new “empire-Tabernacle”) only had gold at the head, but King Nebuchadnezzar’s obelisk was gold from head to foot. This new king, under whom Israel was now a “Covenant vassal,” would be taught by God that he, too, was subject to a higher authority.
It’s cat-among-the pigeons time again.
Identifying the Bible Matrix in Acts reveals in quite a number of places that the author, Luke, has a sense of humour. Or the Holy Spirit does. In Acts 8, at Ascension (Firstruits), the Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip to hop up into his chariot. [1]
Philip opens the Law for him at Pentecost, the man is “resurrected” at Trumpets, baptized at Atonement (the Laver), and at Tabernacles we have both a Jew and Gentile whose witness flows out into the nations.
Daniel was taken to Babylon before the destruction of Jerusalem. As the ruler over the king’s advisors, it is highly likely he was involved in the razing of Jerusalem.
The Lord sent Joseph into Egypt as a forerunner, established his house and integrated the old house of Jacob into it. Pharaoh was converted under the ministry of Joseph, humbled himself before Jacob and requested a blessing.
The Lord did the same thing with Daniel. A new house was being established in Babylon before the final demolition of the old Temple. Daniel ascended as “firstfruits”. He stood on the mountain of God as Abraham, as Moses. At the right hand of the power he would bring the curses of the Law raining down upon the Covenant breakers. As Abraham bargained with God, perhaps the mercy shown to Judah’s poor was the work of Daniel.
or Cutting Off the Generations of the Wicked
O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!
(Psalm 137:8-9)
A further comment on Psalm 137 (following Church and State and Liturgy as Prophecy):
The church has the power to excommunicate, but the state alone has the power to execute. In Joshua’s and David’s time, church and state were one, thus Israel’s army slaughtered God’s enemies judicially. In Mordecai’s time, the slaughter of Haman’s followers by the Jews occurred only after church and state became one under Mordecai’s new executive power.
As an advisor to the state, the church gives the word, and offers the sacraments, but it is always the state that carries out the judgment — government. The state is the “outer court” into which the living sword-water flows. Some taste life and others taste death. [1]
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:
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.
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.
