Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.” But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They said to Him, “We are able.” So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” (Matthew 20:20-23)
When we say “Amen,” we’d better mean it. It is a reception of the Covenant, binding us to it legally for better or worse. Ray Sutton writes:
Victor from Brazil has wrapped his head around Totus Christus with lightning speed and sent a couple of insightful applications to the New Testament. As with my stuff, no one is being dogmatic. But the continued evidence for this is overwhelming. The big question is, was Paul doing this deliberately?
Victor has some sublime observations in here. As always, these will make sense (or more sense) to you if you have read the book.
There’s nothing better than theologians who basically agree on lots debating the finer points. Jordan and Wilson have different ideas on what a classical education should consist of. Somehow, I agree with both of them. Typical fanboy. You can watch the video here.
God took on a body, from the dust, in Adam. A trillion particles of inanimate, dead stuff pulled together and organised into the most complex system in the cosmos, an organic machine capable of feats we are yet to discover.
Adam, as Covenant head, also took on a “body.” A Divine Handful of flesh and bone, dead or dying by any human measure, organised into a being more palatial and lavish than any male eye is worthy to behold.
Another quote from Regis Debray’s God: An Itinerary, and then some comments.
He’s a staunch atheist so I really shouldn’t be enjoying this book. What a mind. He’s like James Jordan’s evil twin. He has some wonderful observations despite his lack of the unifying paradigm of faith to understand their true meanings. He alternately makes me want to scream and sing.
Debray mistakenly interprets the adjustments made by God in the economy of His people throughout history as the inventions of men, yet without the constraints of errant tradition, he often hits the nail on the head. All he says should be taken with a grain of salt, but he is consistently thought-provoking.
41. The cities of the nations never fell in A.D. 70 (Rev. 16: 19).
This is a symbolic passage, but when we understand its nature, its message is astonishing. The reference to Jerusalem being divided into three parts alludes to Deuteronomy 19:3 concerning cities of refuge. There is also a “trinitarian” judgment in Ezekiel 5. Both are the outflow of the structure of the Tabernacle, which in turn images the pattern of heaven. This verse in Revelation 16 is, ironically, at the Tabernacle/Ascension step in this matrix pattern:
How are we to understand the need for Jacob to wrestle not only with Laban, but also with the angel of the Lord?
Abraham was given a miraculous son and his greatest test was to face the loss of that promised son. Jacob’s test was a similar loss of what had been gained through unity with God by Covenant. Both Abraham and Jacob had learned that they were not lords themselves but stewards under the Lord. Their authority was delegated to them. They were “Word incarnate.” Theirs was the authority of a head servant. They were Covenant vassals, and what was truly precious was their faithful relationship to God under this Covenant. Continue reading
11. “We shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3: 2). Never happened in A.D. 70.
12. “We shall know, even as we are known” (1 Cor. 13: 12). Still not fulfilled — unless you redefine knowledge.
I believe the first resurrection occurred during the Jewish war. Revelation specifically teaches two resurrections bookending the kingdom age. The end of the Temple was the coming of the kingdom. We cannot spiritualise this idea and say the first resurrection is conversion. That’s not what the text says. It says that those who took part in the first resurrection lived and reigned with Christ for the millennium. They are a human government in heaven. See Big Government.
I am not conceding anything to hyperpreterists. Yes, I believe they are right (to some degree) concerning a resurrection in AD70. What they don’t take into account is the pattern of the bigger picture laid down in the Old Testament, starting in Genesis, a pattern that structures the world, the Tabernacle, and even the human body, that leaves their denial of a future resurrection and judgment without justification. A physical “Land” resurrection actually guarantees a physical “World” resurrection. See Trinitarian Judgments.
Mike Bull is a graphic designer who lives and works in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia. His passion is understanding and teaching the Bible, and he writes occasionally for Theopolis Institute in Birmingham AL, USA.
