The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me… (Jonah 2:5)
The Errant Typology of Baptismal Sprinkling
The Bible is an incredibly complex book, however it is also an incredibly consistent book. Its symbolism is a language, which means that although it is flexible enough to allow for new combinations, it has a core which remains steadfast from Genesis to Revelation. This means that, just as we have no excuse for refusing to read this book of types for what it is, we also have no excuse for misusing its types to support any otherwise unsupportable dogma.
Jesus’ reference to Daniel 7 in Matthew 26:64 (and Mark 14:62) is a source of some confusion. To figure out what is actually going on in Daniel’s vision, we have to go back to Leviticus 16. James Jordan writes:
…when Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man,” He is referring to Ezekiel, not to Daniel 7 (except perhaps indirectly). Jesus is the Greater Ezekiel. Christians are those who are “like the Son of Man,” like Jesus.
James B. Jordan was the first Bible teacher I ever heard who had an opinion on the gift of tongues in relation to the rest of the Bible. This gent cops a lot of criticism from the establishment for various things, but he is one who really “gets” the Bible. This is because he asks the right questions. And, without being too harsh, he most often makes all the other theologians and Bible teachers in any debate, on both sides of the debate, look like kindergarten children.
or Bird’s Eye View
[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]
or The Killer Hermeneutic
An online acquaintance asked: “There’s a hermeneutical method that’s been used on this site called ‘systematic typology’. What is it? How does one apply it? Are there contexts where it is considered to be a particularly good or particularly bad fit? Where can one go to learn more about it? And where does it come from? (Who developed it, and based on what?)
or the Covenanto-Architecturo-Historico-Grammatico-Muso Method
“A seal is meant to be broken.”
During the first of his recent lectures in London, James Jordan tore a page out of his Bible. It was the page announcing the New Testament as a separate book with its own pagination. It is one thing to interpret the New Testament in the light of contemporary literature and history, but their importance pales in comparison to the texts being recognized as a continuation of the Scriptures.
If you have read chapter two of Bible Matrix III, you should be able to follow the application of that “prophetic grid” to the plagues upon Egypt in this chapter, Brood of Vipers.
or Bible SatNav
The adage “A picture is worth a thousand words” refers to the notion that a complex idea can be conveyed with just a single still image. It also aptly characterizes one of the main goals of visualization, namely making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly. (Wikipedia)
It struck me this morning, as I read one of my regular theology blogs, that theologians don’t much use diagrams. The blog post in question used over a thousand words to describe something that is inherent in the architectures (both literary and spatial) found in the Bible.
What this means is that, for the most part, the way we communicate theology is foreign to the way our God does it.
The Holy Herringbone
Part 1 here.
We’ve covered the first “Covenant cycle” in Numbers, which in theory should set the pattern (fractally) for the remainder of the book. Here’s my go at the second cycle, which (again, in theory, if my suspicions are correct), should be an “exposition” of the second part of the first cycle, which concerned the “military” arrangement of the tribes around the Tent of Meeting (Delegation). So, even though this cycle works through all seven steps, each step should reflect an “Exodus/Hierarchy” or Delegation theme. Each step thus has two literary “spatial coordinates,” an X and a Y. Each step must thus employ a symbol that pertains to two different Covenant steps, or describes the relationship between them.
Red Blood, Blue Blood
Behold, when we come to the land, you shall bind this line of scarlet thread in the window from which you let us down… Joshua 2:18
Each Israelite was to wear blue tassels on the four corners of his robe. The tassel was a blue cord that unraveled into threads, a “one” that became many. Using the “systematic typology” of the Bible Matrix, we can see that these four blue tassels correspond to the four rivers the flowed down from the spring under the Garden of Eden. 
So, what’s the deal with the “red cord” that Rahab was commanded to display in her window in Jericho? Firstly, the Hebrew word isn’t the same word as the “cord” in Numbers 15.