Bully's Blog

“There are two main ‘checks and balances’ that restrain us from misusing the Bible’s symbols. The first is the Bible’s consistent use of the same symbols. Continue reading

Time for another weird post I think. Here’s some thoughts on Genesis 2:

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Why the change from Adam and Eve to Ish and Isha? Perhaps because the words are symbolic, and symbols describe relationships.[1] There is the possibility that these words were used because they sound like eish (fire), regardless of their differing derivations (the jury is still out on this one after 6000 years). Jordan mentions that Adam was to be an Altar made of earth, and with his own blood shed comes the “fire” of Isha, the woman as the shining on the altar, the glory cloud on Mount Sinai. It certainly corresponds with the feasts. Adam “ascends” to headship over Eve in marriage (Firstfruits), and then he is to “open the Law” to Eve and fill her with light (Pentecost), which he did, but failed to repeat the Law (Trumpets) after she was tested. Atonement followed.

Continue reading

…let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching… you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: “For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry.”
(Hebrews 10:24-25 and 36-37)

The resurrection that the New Testament writers were looking forward to occurred in the first century. They refer to it as being imminent. Jesus said some who heard His words would see His coming before they died. John would remain alive until Jesus came in judgment. It was the saints receiving the kingdom and being resurrected. Now the church governs the world from heaven, and its heavenly ‘Temple’ pattern is being measured out on the earth.

Continue reading

“We shall be gods”

“Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”  Colossians 2:20-23

As with nearly everthing in the Bible, the roots of this go back to early Genesis.

Continue reading

If the Bible were only about salvation by grace, it would be a lot shorter. It is about a growth from childhood to maturity, from nakedness to glory.

Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. That goes back to the two trees in the garden, bread (obedient priesthood) and wine (kingly wisdom).

Jesus carried the people of God through Adam’s testing (breaking the bread), beyond the tree of life, to the tree of wisdom (poured out wine).

‘of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God’ (1 Cor. 1:30)

‘in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ (Col 2:3)

He is both trees, and now we eat and drink Him freely before God.

Sacramental Doses of Death

Water, fire, salt and wine are symbols of judgment. In small quantities they bring life and keep death at bay (defilement). In large quantities, God uses them to destroy an irredeemable culture:

Syncretised sons of God (Gen 6) – water
Sodom – fire and salt (Gen 18-19)
The old Canaanite world, then Babylon – wine (Jer 25)

For the church to be “salty” means it brings sound judgment to society. To lose its saltiness is the same as fire not being hot, or water not being cold. If we are not salty, we are lukewarm, and things that should be mortified in the church are not dealt with. Judgment begins at the house of God and flows to the nations.

In this context, the following words of James Jordan are not so shocking as they might otherwise appear:

The coming of the kingdom always involves the violent destruction of the wicked. When God announced the birth of Isaac, He immediately went out and destroyed Sodom (Genesis 18-19). These events are linked. The rescue of Israel from Egypt entailed the destruction of Egypt. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is followed by the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira. The New Covenant brought with it the horrors of AD70.1 Jesus is Kinsman Redeemer/Avenger. In Hebrew, redeem and avenge are the same word: ga’al.

Christians should rejoice at the privilege of bringing holy violence against the wicked and violating their plans and their wicked integrity. In union with Christ, who is both Redeemer and Avenger, Christians have both privileges. Serving in the Church, Christians extend redemption. Serving in the State, Christians extend Vengeance where necessary. The Christian serving as President of the USA should have Osama bin Laden captured and brought to Washington. Then, in front of television cameras from all nations of the world, the Christian President should smilingly blow bin Laden’s brains out, and publicly praise the Triune God for the privilege of doing so. Anyone who disagrees with this has no notion of what his baptism into union with Christ means.

A theology of indiscriminate “non-violence” is pure Satanism. It gives the world to the devil. In Christ we are now adults, and as adults we have grown-up responsibilities. One of those is the joyous privilege of exercising violence against the wicked.2

I have to say, I gulped hard when I first read this. But such a reaction shows how far out of step with Christ we are in our thinking. And such a judgment assumes we are already judging ourselves rightly with sacramental doses of water, fire, salt and wine and not hypocrites. The problem with the world begins with me.

_____________

1 Read Frederick Farrar’s summary here.

2 James B. Jordan, Evil Empire?, Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 199, September 2008. Subscribe at www.biblicalhorizons.com

I recently found a quote that deals wonderfully with the argument that Genesis was just a story written to refute the errors in the paganism of the time, not to describe the actual biological history of the world:

“…while it’s quite unlikely that Moses was thinking, “Take that, Darwin!” when he set pen to papyrus, it will turn out that by refuting Enuma Elish, Genesis also refutes Darwin, because Darwinism, at bottom, is nothing but Enuma Elish baptized in post-Enlightenment balloon juice. Anyone with Longman’s literary expertise ought to see this very clearly.

Enuma Elish says the world as we know it today was born in an orgy of chaos, sex, and death, and these three forces are the engine from which all life springs. Darwin explains that the various species arise from a combination of random mutation (chaos) and natural selection (sex and death). The big difference is that Darwin said it in a way that post-Enlightenment man wouldn’t laugh at. Hawking likewise has nothing to add that Enuma Elish hasn’t already offered to the world, only to have Genesis soundly refute it.”

You can read Tim Nichols’ full article here:

How Not To Read Genesis

Is Genesis 1 history or myth?

“The expositor [of the creation narratives] must move knowingly between two temptations. On the one hand, there is the temptation to treat this material as historical, as a report of what happened…. On the other hand, there is the temptation to treat these materials as myth, as statements which announce what has always been and will always be true of the world…. Our exposition will insist that these texts be taken neither as history nor as myth. Rather, we insist that the text is a proclamation of God’s decisive dealing with his creation.

The word “creation” is controlling for such a view. The whole cluster of words—creator/ creation/ create/ creature—are confessional words freighted with peculiar meaning. Terms such as “cosmos” and “nature” should never be carelessly used as equivalents, for these words do not touch the theocentric, covenantal relational affirmation being made…. The text, then, is a proclamation of covenanting as the shape of reality…. This theological affirmation permits every scientific view that is genuinely scientific and not a theological claim in disguise.”

—Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary), pp. 16-17.

I agree that the Creation narrative sets the foundation for the structure of later Covenants, and also of the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple, but the explanation above is just a fancy dance to avoid the unavoidable bullet that is Genesis 1. So it’s a proclamation that affirms theological truth but not historical truth? No wonder the western church is in a pickle!

When faced with an issue in which you wish to fence-sit, REDEFINE the terminology:

“In the last analysis, the Old Testament doctrine of creation expresses a sense of the present situation of man. He is hedged in by the incomprehensible power of Almighty God. The real purpose of the creation story is to inculcate what God is doing all the time…. Thus the doctrine of creation expresses man’s sense of utter dependence on God.”

—Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, p. 18.

If Genesis 1 is not history, and it is not myth, it is ideology. Which makes this plain old boring gnosticism. These smart guys just don’t get it, do they?

As one of my old Bible teachers used to say, “If someone’s taking an odd position, there’s a bee in his pocket.”

Attack from the Abyss

As with most things in the Bible the pattern begins in Genesis.

Unlike the serpent’s warriors, who live by the sword, God’s warrior is a father-ruler who fights only to protect those in his care. Nimrod was a serpent-king—a dragon; Abram was a servant-king, God’s answer to Nimrod the ‘rebel’ (most likely Gilgamesh).

Satan’s attack on ‘the offspring of the woman’ through Pharaoh had failed, so he resorted to inciting a conspiracy of nations. The serpent became a dragon. But Abram (as a good Gilgamesh/Nimrod), along with the men of his household, defeated them, rescued Lot and his family, and very importantly, plundered the attackers. The darkest nights that God allows are always opportunities for more glory. And, this being HOLY war, Abram refused the ‘devoted’ plunder.

The next instance involves Amalek, who attacked Israel in the wilderness, and mercilessly picked off the stragglers. Once again, God’s man “came down” to fight – in Joshua, at Moses’ command – with Moses, Hur and Aaron as Ark and cherubim on the holy hill, the “garden gate”.

“The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:16)

This statement about Amalek is more loaded than it seems. Amalek was defeated, and the plunders from the victory were devoted to building God’s house in the wilderness. We will see this pattern again and again. Each time, deliverance for God’s people is on a greater scale, and the defeat more catastrophic for His enemies.

Counter-FEET

The gospel was on its way to conquering the Roman empire. Jewish persecution had failed (read Acts). A flood of false doctrine had failed (read the later epistles for the fight). So Satan used persecution from a Jew-Gentile conspiracy to persecute the new church.

The thought is this:

The feet of the statue in Daniel 2 became Satan’s answer to the by-now successful “intermarriage” of Jews and Gentiles in one body, the Christian church. As a Jew-Gentile conspiracy, the metal man became an evil twin of Paul’s Jew-Gentile Tabernacle. With unclean feet of Roman iron intermarried with Edomite (red) clay, Judaism became the church of Esau.

(For more, see Esau’s Ladder).