Remy Wilkins recently proposed a thesis about serpents and dragons in the Bible. Is there a difference? Are the words interchangeable? And even if they aren’t, how are these animals–and the spiritual truths they were created to represent–related?
This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.
From a recent facebook post by Rick Capezza (reproduced with his permission):
I’m trying to figure out the structure of the miracles of the two daughters in Mark. I looked in a half dozen commentaries for structures, but found nothing. I have yet to try a hierarchical structure, but I took a quick shot at a chiasm using Eric [Pyle]‘s KAYAK tool. [1]
“In Genesis 1, God creates the world in six days, through certain steps. Then He creates human beings out of ‘world,’ and human beings made out of world are going to live like ‘world’ does. They are going to go from darkness to light, formlessness to form; they are going to marry and take dominion. They are going to become like lights ruling over the earth. They’re going to live in 24 hour cycles. They will undergo times when God pulls them apart and puts them back together in new ways–all because they are made out of world. And these are all steps of glorification.” — James B. Jordan (The Bible You Never Read)
Some Christians assert that Adam was not the first man, only the first man in Covenant with God. [1] This means that the judgments upon such a Covenant could only be social, not “Creational.” They could only fall upon those under Covenant, not the “pre-Adamic” people from which this Covenant separated Adam. This assertion must be made to support the view that the Great Flood was only a local event, destroying only the “Adamites,” not all people on the planet. Does this assertion have any support in Scripture? Apparently yes, but factually no.
Micah Martin (brother of one of the authors of Beyond Creation Science), has kindly read Bible Matrix II and written about my adherence to the Genesis account of Creation as both Covenant and history (i.e. the account is not simply an account of the physical world being given a Covenantal purpose as a Temple, but also its actual Creation). There is much that we agree on, but the disagreement on this subject couldn’t be sharper, or of more importance.
Part of the process of maturity for the Spirit-led Church is to go where no institution has gone before. The Jews crossed Land and Sea to make proselytes, their Temple a spring in the desert, but Christian mission was the over-tipping of the cleansing Laver, the baptism of the first century world. Of course, this was bound to have political consequences.
Preterists have a go at dispensationalists for interpreting the Bible through the lens of current headlines. We recognize that the Bible must be interpreted in its historical context, for its “first audience.” But there’s a brand of “newspaper exegesis” that plagues preterism as well.
Here’s the amazon description of Christian Smith’s recent book, The Bible Made Impossible.
Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible’s exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims. If evangelical biblicism worked as its proponents say it should, there would not be the vast variety of interpretive differences that biblicists themselves reach when they actually read and interpret the Bible.
Smith describes the assumptions, beliefs, and practices of evangelical biblicism and sets it in historical, sociological, and philosophical context. He explains why it is an impossible approach to the Bible as an authority and provides constructive alternative approaches to help evangelicals be more honest and faithful in reading the Bible. Far from challenging the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Smith critiques a particular rendering of it, encouraging evangelicals to seek a more responsible, coherent, and defensible approach to biblical authority.
“He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found…”
And [Moses] said, (T) (Creation)
…..“If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God (H) (Division)
……….and do what is right in His sight, (Ascension)
……………give ear to His commandments (E) (Testing)
……….and keep all His statutes, (Maturity)
…..I will put none of the diseases on you (O) (Conquest – Blessing)
…..which I have brought on the Egyptians. (Conquest – Cursing)
For I [am] the LORD who heals you.” (S) (Glorification)
— Exodus 15:26
“QuantumGreg” posted a comment on Sam Frost’s review of my book. He objects to the idea that, under the New Covenant, obedience to the Law will bring a decrease in disease. It’s a very reasonable objection.
“…does this not sound like Law to you? In fact, it is the Law (Deuteronomy 28). It sounds so much like the Old Covenant that it has no resemblance to the New Covenant, don’t you think?
If there is a God, and there is, then atheism did not free our thinking. Atheism has a closed mind concerning anything beyond its own nose. Thus, rather than furthering the cause of science, it is more likely that it has a stranglehold on it.
The gifted minds of the new atheists were gifts from Christianity. As the Spirit of God vacates Western Culture, so does the “Word.” Our children become confused, illiterate, and incapable of logical thought. According to Bojidar Marinov, we are already seeing atheism’s effects in the field of mathematics.
Bible Matrix blog
