This video is going to destroy your ability to ever watch these guys again, but hopefully it will call everyone in this community to a higher standard of theology than they've ever seen before. The goal is not to tear these great men down, but to call everyone to a higher standard of theology across the board. My name is Dr Michael Coochini.
I'm a medical doctor and an MBA. I have a 164 IQ, and I've read every religious text on Earth. The things I'm about to tell you are going to blow your mind; it's stuff we talk about regularly on my TikTok page.
The problem is you guys on YouTube are so behind what we're talking about on TikTok that it's concerning, and I'm trying to bring you up to speed. You guys are over here, like exegeting the New Testament, and we're talking about how all creation testifies to God. It's just a bigger God we're talking about over on TikTok, and you guys have put Him in this box.
In this lecture, I'm going to teach you what the Bible is, where it came from, and how we're supposed to be reading it. In doing this, you're going to see why all these guys are wrong. Before we start, let's pray.
Lord God Almighty, thank you for this day. Thank you for your Son. Thank you for the cross.
Thank you for grace, Father—the God of all creation, the God of Jacob, Abraham, and Isaac, Elai Yahweh, the Ancient of Days. We just call out to You, Father. We call out like little children saying, “Abba, we love You.
” Father, I ask that You use what is true in this lecture to plant as seeds in the hearts of anyone watching, Lord. I pray that if I go too far into any one analogy, or I say something from my own heart, my own mind, my own soul, that You would just let it fall at their feet like flaming arrows, Lord. But anything that is true, true and anything that is of You, I pray that it finds good soil in their hearts, Lord—plowed-up fields—and that it would grow into the tree of life, be watered by the Holy Spirit, and that it would bear much fruit.
Lord, we just pray for Your providence, Lord. We pray for Your grace and Your mercy. Lord, we pray that You guide us, everlasting Father.
We pray, Lord, that You lead us in the way everlasting and remove anything that's not of You, any offensive way in us. Father, I love You. Thank You for Your beautiful Son.
In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen. All right, let's get started.
So what is the Bible? The Bible is simply the story of Jesus Christ, and from it, we can tell how we got here. It's literally His story, or history.
The first Bible was transferred when Adam told Eve what happened, right? Very short. "Hey, before you got here, there's this dude named God.
He told me all this cool stuff. He made all this stuff; He had me name some things, and now you're here. " That was literally the first Bible, and it was transferred in oral tradition.
As things continued to happen and Adam and Eve had more and more kids, that story got bigger and bigger to encompass more of the things God had already done. During this time, it was transferred in oral tradition. Now, their minds were more powerful than ours are today.
We're not evolving from Adam; we're devolving from Adam. We're getting stupider with every single generation. Idiocracy is prophetic; we are the stupidest generation to ever live, and it's only going downhill from here.
The advent of written technology was technology to subsidize the decline of the human intellect. Writing wasn't even necessary back then because their brains were powerful enough to just remember all of it, and the oral tradition was more accurate than the written code is now. A lot of people wonder how is that even possible?
It's because in oral tradition, you had the literal content, which is what we have today—literature—but you also had the actual meaning, which we do not have today. That's why we all argue about the actual meaning of the literal content. So when the Bible was transferred from Adam to Eve or father to son, as this keeps going down and it keeps getting bigger and bigger, you had literal content and actual understanding.
If anyone knows how encryption works, the literal content is the public key and the actual understanding is the private key. Back then, if you were my kid, I would tell you, “Hey, here's what God said,” and I'd make you get every word right in the literal content. But then I would say, “Now, what does that mean?
” If you had a different interpretation, I would correct you, and if you didn't accept the correction, I would tell you, “Then I'm not going to teach you the next sentence. ” So back in the oral tradition, the literal content was merged with the actual understanding; today, they've been separated. I actually think this is intentional.
I think God has created a theological Tower of Babel where none of us speaks the exact same theological language. He's given us each different pieces of the puzzle because He wants us to need each other. Okay, let's continue on.
So the story of the Bible continues down to a guy named Moses, who writes the Bible into text in Egypt. This is when the Bible started to switch from oral tradition to literary text. So you have the oral period, and it was really just a story being told; it literally is His story, Jesus—the story of the Messiah that will come and crush the head of the snake.
They would live like 900 years, and as the rate of life began to decline, the human intellect declined with it. This is literally just entropy; the human mind is falling apart from the molecular or atomic level because of the curse of Genesis 3, and eventually, it gets so bad that we have to write it down to preserve it. As the Bible continues on in text, which is the literal content we now have to guess the actual meaning of, and of course, we all disagree on the actual meaning, which is where you get all this separation.
Once the Bible is written down in text, there are a lot of crazy things that happened about 500 years before Christ. Nehemiah and the twenty scribes started a group called the Great Assembly. This group would go on to become the Jewish Sanhedrin of Jesus's day, and even then they disagreed with canons.
There were the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. The Essenes had a very broad canon similar to the Orthodox, the Sadducees only believed in the five books of the Torah, and the Pharisees had the full Hebrew Tanakh, which is the Old Testament that Protestants use today. Now, this was written in Hebrew, and it did not include the Catholic Apocrypha that the Catholic Church uses today.
We know this because those books weren't even written until after the Tanakh was canonized in Hebrew by the Great Assembly. Around this time, there was a rich man who commissioned 70 scribes to translate that Hebrew Tanakh into Greek so he could read it. This became called the Septuagint; it was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh that had already been canonized by Nehemiah and the Great Assembly.
This is the point at which these extra-Catholic books were pushed into the literature because this was happening right around the time of Christ. The Catholics argue that the Bible that Jesus read was the Septuagint, and therefore it's the correct Bible, but as a Jew, Jesus actually would have read the Hebrew Tanakh, not the Greek Septuagint. As he persecuted the early Church, we get this guy named Diocletian who does the exact same thing.
At this time, there were so many different sects of early Christianity that it was even more divided than it is now. Specifically, Diocletian told the early Church that they had to turn in their books, meaning give to the government any literature that was Christian at all, any copies of Scripture, anything like that, so they could burn it. He told them they had to get a certificate from a pagan temple showing that they had sacrificed to pagan gods, and the Roman government under Diocletian would encourage people to report Christian sects that were having church services in secret.
Obviously, you know what they're going to do to those Christians. One of those Christian sects, called the Catholics, were notorious for turning in their books, worshiping pagan gods, and reporting other Christians to be persecuted by Diocletian. After Diocletian, Constantine comes in, and he has a softer heart posture towards the Christians.
Historically speaking, we don't really know if Constantine converted to Christianity or if it was some genius political move, but when Constantine got involved with the Christian Church and realized how divided and contentious it is, he decides to pick one sect of Christianity and fund them and run with it. Those were the Catholics, and from here we have the Council of Nicaea and the other 21 ecumenical councils. Ecumenical just means churchwide; there are thousands of little local councils all over the place.
This little itty-bitty piece of history that the Catholics don't want you to know about happens right before the Council of Nicaea and is called the Council of Arles. At the Council of Arles, this other Christian sect called the Donatists are accusing the Catholics of persecuting Christians under the rule of Diocletian, turning in their books, and worshiping pagan gods. The crazy thing about this is the Catholics don't even refute it.
They don't say, "No, you're lying; you're making this up. " They're like, "Yeah, we did that, but we should still have authority in the Church because of our previously held positions in the Church before the persecution started. " The Donatists argued that they should be removed from the Church and excommunicated because of their treachery.
Constantine ruled in favor of the Catholics retaining their authority in the Church, and here's why: the Catholics argued that if they weren't given their seniority back after the persecution, this would undermine the structural integrity of the Church itself, meaning if they were excommunicated now, it would then retroactively call into question everything they did during their careers as priests. Constantine agreed and ruled in their favor. Constantine then funds these backstabbing traitors called Catholics, and they become the foundation of the early Church.
300 years after Christ, Constantine rightly figured that if the Catholics already sold out to Diocletian, they would just sell out to him as well, and so he offered them funding, and they took it. Catholics are just the Judas denomination of the early Church that took the bag of silver. Constantine then puts those notorious traitors back in power, and they become the Magisterium, and then from this bed of corruption, the Catholic Church steadily grows.
Fast forward 1200 years, and you have this guy named Martin Luther who nails a list of grievances to the door at the Church at Wittenberg, and this becomes known as the 95 Theses. If you want to ruin a Protestant's day, just give them a copy of the 95 Theses and tell them to read it. They're going to open it up thinking it's all going to be about sola scriptura and salvation by grace through faith, not works, and in fact, it has really nothing to do with that at all; it's about indulgences.
The Orthodox Church already split off from. . .
The Catholics, a couple hundred years earlier, the Protestant Reformation is literally just going back to the Hebrew Tanakh before the Septuagint. That’s why it’s called a reforming or a Reformation. But when you actually read the 95 Theses, there’s very little distinction in there about *metanoia*, meaning the Greek word for repentance or a changing of mind.
Martin Luther does mention it, but he does so in a way that explains that turning from sin is not part of repentance; rather, repentance simply means to change your mind that you’re going to turn, and then you turn from sin after that. But you’re not saved from the work of turning; you’re saved from the repentance, the changed mind. But if you’ve truly changed your mind, then you will turn.
So turning from sin is very important, but it’s not what saves you at all, and this is a big distinction for the Catholic Church at the time. Now, the Catholics were selling indulgences in three main ways, and this is why the Crusades were so absolutely heinous. People went off to war thinking that they didn’t have to pay for any of the sins they committed, and so they would do horrible things to families.
I won’t even say what they did to children and men and women, but the main reason for all the gruesome brutality is that the Catholics were telling them that if you pay the church money, we will absolve your sins, and so you can go do whatever you want. They would even sell prepaid sin cards—like prepaid SIM cards. Trying to be funny there a little bit—but you could pre-order indulgences for what you were about to go do.
And so people would pay all this money to the Catholic Church and then go rape and pillage an entire village, thinking, “I’m already paid for; the Catholic said it’s not going to count against me,” or you could just do whatever you want and go back and pay the Catholic Church to absolve yourself from that sin. Or if you never make it back because you die in battle, your family and friends can pay to bail you out of purgatory. This is how crazy this thing was.
There was even a Catholic saying that the sound of the money hitting the offering tray is the sound of your friend’s soul leaving purgatory. This is what Martin Luther was mainly concerned about. Martin Luther did say something very interesting in the 95 Theses at the end, though.
He said, “If the regenerate Christian is no longer on the hook for the wages of sin, which is death, then what is the cost of continuing on in sin post-salvation? ” And he concluded something very interesting: that it’s self-hatred. It makes sense; the whole world is sinning.
We hate ourselves because of our sin. We don’t want to hate ourselves, so we tell each other we should love ourselves. Self-love—go to therapy, and they’re going to tell you that you don’t love yourself enough.
But the Bible says that your depression is stemming from the fact that you love yourself so much that all you do is sit around and think about how depressed you are. The Bible says, “Deny yourself, take up your cross, love your neighbor, and follow Christ. ” There’s not really a lot in there about self-love; rather, it’s about God’s love for us and our love for Him.
Just an interesting point while we’re talking about it. So Martin Luther’s 95 Theses starts this movement of reforming the original early church based on the Hebrew Tanakh, not the Greek Septuagint, not the Magisterium, not the ecumenical councils, and not the Catholic Church that goes all the way back to Constantine and Diocletian. It was literally a Reformation of the early church before it was corrupted with Catholicism.
From there, we get all these different translations of the Bible in different languages, and the question becomes, which translation should you read? A lot of you guys that say the Bible’s infallible and inherent don’t know which translations you consider infallible and inherent. Do you guys think the Passion Translation is infallible and inherent?
What about the King James? What about the ESV? What about the Message?
Most people that claim the Bible is textually inherent and infallible think that that means it’s preserved in the literary content, but it’s not. And if you believe it is, which translation are you talking about? I’ll show you problems with all of them.
The truth is that the Bible is spiritually preserved despite some of its textual inaccuracies. Alright, and this brings us to the Bible that you have today and how you should be reading it. And this is where most of these teachers on YouTube are leading you astray.
They are telling you to go to the New Testament and use your brain to exegete those scriptures, and in doing so, you're making a list of rules and putting yourself back under the law. Name one scholar in scripture that Jesus commended for his intelligence. When Jesus met Nicodemus, the scholar of scholars, He made fun of him.
He said, “You’re the scholar of scholars; you’re the teacher of teachers! How then can anyone understand anything, seeing they don’t see and hearing they don’t hear? ” The blind are leading the blind.
Jesus said, “If you don’t understand the physical, how are you going to understand the spiritual? If you don’t understand the things of this world, that all creation testifies physically to spiritual truths, how are you going to understand the spiritual? If you don’t understand the things of this world that are mirrors of the spiritual world, how are you going to understand the things of heaven?
” And while Jesus never commended a single intellectual scholar in the Bible, He continuously marveled at the faith of illiterate peasants. That should tell you something. about how you're supposed to be reading the Bible.
Jesus says, "Praise you, Father, that you've hidden these truths from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. " He says, "Unless you become like a little child, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. " The Old Testament is physical; the New Testament is spiritual.
They're both literal. The Old Testament is a literal, physical live-action parable that's happening in real time with real people, but all of it is radiating these beautiful images and foreshadowings of Christ in the New Testament from these actual stories. The New Testament is the spiritual, literal fulfillment of all these things.
For example, Noah is one man, a carpenter, and he uses nails in his hands to build a floating refuge for one family to rise above the wrath of God, yet still be tossed around by the waves of it. That's interesting! That's what Jesus does spiritually: one man, carpenter, nails in his hands, builds salvation for one family to rise above the wrath of God, yet still be tossed around by the waves of it.
That's justification, sanctification, and glorification, or death, burial, and resurrection, or Egypt, desert, promised land. It's all the same exact story. All these teachers are telling you to go to the New Testament, pull verses out, load them up like bullets in a clip, and shoot them at each other.
Meanwhile, the New Testament says, "Don't be contentious about the details," and that's probably because the difference in our theologies within the line of what is actually truly the gospel and what is not is intentionally divided. Is it possible that God just created a theological Tower of Babel and told us not to try to speak the same languages? The point is that the gospel should spread out.
We are all assuming that there's one Orthodox understanding. I'm not talking about the Orthodox Church, but the word itself, "Orthodox," means one actual understanding. While that's true that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and there is only one truth, we may be assuming that it's possible for one person to see the entire truth when, in fact, God has only let us see bits and pieces of it.
So what happens to your relationship when you stop reading the New Testament like a scholar and you go read the Old Testament like a child? This is going to forever change the way you read the Bible. It's going to deepen your relationship with God, but sadly, it's also going to ruin your ability to listen to these teachers anymore.
But hopefully, that calls them to a deeper relationship with God and therefore their teaching and theology will be flowing from a deeper foundation in the first place. I'm not trying to destroy these men; I'm trying to force them to dig deeper. You know when you take a picture with your phone, it has two dates on it.
It has the creation date when the file was actually generated by the phone, but then if you transfer it to someone else, it becomes a new file on their system, and that changes the modification date of that file. The Bible works the same way. The Bible started off in oral tradition and then turned into written canon.
History also works the same way. You have mythology, which goes back before we can trace it in writing, and at some point, once it starts getting written down, we call that history. If you mix these two words together in this blurry spot, you literally get "mythy," which sounds like Mike Tyson trying to pronounce "mystery.
" You can think of the oral tradition Torah as going back to the creation date of the religion itself, and the written text as the modification date. That's why anyone with half a brain who's ever read a history book just laughs at atheists when they talk about the date of the text to determine the origins of the religion. When the oral tradition was written down into text, it's just the modification date; it has no bearing on how far the oral tradition goes back before it.
Do you read the Bible like a child? Ironically, it's complex. There are three different thought processes I need to teach you about: convergent versus divergent, and the amalgamation of the two making a tertiary type of thought, which I'll explain in just a minute.
Convergent thought is what you guys call "exegesis. " It's taking facts from the world and converging them into a central worldview and then becoming overconfident about that worldview and arguing with other people's worldviews. The problem is that it's garbage in, garbage out.
Your ability to determine fact from fiction is not impressive to God, and so you end up with an overconfident worldview based on facts that you don't actually know are true. The Bible calls these "rocks in the field" in the parable of the sower; they are memes, like Dawkins' memes, memetic data. Dawkins coined the term "meme" in the 1970s to describe the evolution of thought itself.
A meme, which is basically content in a wrapper, is analogous to a gene, which is literally genetic code in a protein capsid. Because memes and genes work the same way, they are both subject to mutations over time, and you can use epidemiology to explain both of them. So now, we don't just have the prevalence, mortality, and morbidity of a virus; you can also use that same terminology to talk about memes or factoids.
What you're doing is taking things that you consider fact and pumping them into your worldview and never deconstructing it. Divergent thought is not forming a centralized worldview with supposed facts; it is asking a central question and looking for possible answers out on the periphery. This is more philosophical; this is more scientific.
So, which way is right? Which way is biblical? Both of them!
This creates the third type of thought, which is a mixture of convergent and divergent thought. It looks like a wave: inhale, exhale—convergent, divergent—with literally the name of God. This is how you're supposed to be reading the Bible: with waves of convergent followed by waves of divergent.
Construct, destruct; construct, destruct. Where do we see this in the Bible? "Search my heart and mind, and remove any offensive way in me.
" That is a divergent statement. The plow that is attached to the yoke that Jesus tells us to pull is literally ripping rocks out of the field, removing things from the field. That is divergent.
Convergent would be if you just keep throwing good rocks in with bad rocks and never stopping to plow them up, examine them, and throw away the bad ones. All these Christian teachers here on YouTube are encouraging convergent thought. They don't even understand that divergent exists.
The problem with that is it turns into overconfident people who think they have good theology that load up Bible verses like a gun and shoot them at other people who are actually over here doing divergent thought. Another place we see this is in the human body. All of creation testifies; we literally live in the Bible.
This world is like God's PowerPoint presentation screaming Jesus and salvation at us all the time. If you look through a telescope or a microscope and you understand what you're seeing, you will see Jesus. Specifically, in the body, you have bones, and bones are constantly being broken down and built up at the same time.
In the body, we have osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The osteoclasts are always tearing down the bone; they're literally eating the bone while the osteoblasts are building it back up. If you have too much of one and not the other, the bones will become brittle because they're too dense and too hard, and they're not flexible, and they'll snap.
To the other extreme, it leads to osteoporosis or holes in the bone. The same is true of your worldview: if you are too convergent or too divergent for too long without switching to the other pattern, your theology will either have holes in it or it will become so rigid that it's no longer flexible and it'll break. This is why these teachers are leading you astray.
They are telling you to convergently read the New Testament, and I'm telling you, don't forget to divergently read the Old. So, they’re only giving you half of the picture; it’s resulting in you thinking you know what you're talking about but completely missing the point of the Bible as a whole. The Old Testament is literally the physical gospel.
For example, in Exodus, we have the Hebrews who are slaves in Egypt under Pharaoh, ruled by gods, building Pharaoh's empire for him. Huh, I wonder what that looks like? If you read it like a child, you see that you are a slave to sin in this world of the devils, ruled by demons, to build his counterfeit carnival for him.
This is why technology is so powerful to understand how God in heaven works, because Satan and the demons, who have full knowledge of heaven and all the things there and how it all works, are recreating those same things here on this Earth with technology. The internet and social media are just the collective consciousness of the saints in heaven. All right, I’m sure that's just a coincidence.
Let’s see if every other piece of this story works the same way. Then the burning bush tells Moses and Aaron to go to Egypt and send plagues against Pharaoh to set the captives free. Huh, what happens when you read that like a child?
The burning bush is the Father; Moses is the Son; Aaron is the Holy Spirit. They go to this world. The Father tells the Son and the Holy Spirit to go to this world and wage war against the devil to set the captives free or give us salvation.
The miracles and the plagues mirror each other; this is God fighting our battles for us. For example, Jesus's first miracle was turning water to wine, while Moses's first plague was turning the Nile red. Jesus's last miracle was the death, burial, and resurrection, and Moses's last plague was Passover—literally mirroring Christ on the cross.
I’m sure this is just a coincidence. Let’s keep going. Then they’re told to put blood on the door to be saved from the angel of death.
The blood is God’s grace; believing in God’s promise that putting it on the door would save you is called faith—trusting in God's promise. That's why we're saved by grace through faith, or faith in God's grace, or trusting in his promises, or believing what he said. And so God offered the blood as grace.
Putting it on the door was showing that you had faith in his grace because you're saved by grace through faith. You're saved! That's salvation from the angel of death, which is the wages of sin, which is death.
The blood is Christ; on the door is the cross. I’m sure that’s probably another 15 minutes. All right, then they’re told to plunder the Egyptians and take silver, garments, and gold.
Plundering the Egyptians makes us more than conquerors. The silver represents the price of a slave, literally ransoming us out of slavery. The garments represent the Holy Spirit; we'll talk all about the garments here in just a second, and the gold represents the inheritance, which is different from the silver.
Then they’re told to leave Egypt and follow Moses through the Red Sea, through the desert to the promised land. Leaving Egypt is turning from sin; following Moses is following Jesus. Through the Red Sea represents baptism; that's why it's red—blood—just like turning the.
. . Water red, just like the water to wine through the desert, which is sanctification.
The whole point is to die in the desert. It only took two weeks to make that crossing; it took them 40 years and a ton of death because they had to get the slave mentality of Egypt burned out of them in that generation and be born again into the next generation so that they could enter the promised land or glorification. We see here that sanctification and glorification happened at the end; justification already happened at the door by the blood, through putting it on the Lamb's door.
Justification is salvation from the wages of sin, which is the Angel of Death. That's why we're saved by grace through faith; that's justification for works. Ephesians chapter 2, verses 8 and 9 say, "You are saved by grace through faith, not works, lest any man boast.
" It's a free gift of God. And then verse 10, which everyone skips, says, "For every good work that was laid out for you before the foundation of the earth. " It's very simple: by grace through faith for works.
But Romans 4 clarifies James 2. Sixteen years after James writes James 2, Paul writes Romans 4 to clarify because it's causing a lot of problems. He says faith without works is dead, which is true.
Paul clarifies that for those without works, faith is credited as righteousness. Sanctification increases holiness, but you never arrive at being perfectly holy. That's not how righteousness works.
Holiness and righteousness are not the same things. Justification by Jesus Christ makes you righteous; it's an on-and-off switch. You're either clothed or you're naked.
Holiness is a gradient; it's a desert, and that's the process of sanctification. Glorification is leaving this body and going to a new heavenly body. "Who will rescue me from this body of death?
" But you see that you have to die in sanctification in order to be glorified. So faith without works is dead, and yet you're saved from the wages of sin, the Angel of Death, by the blood on the door or Christ on the cross. Do you see how reading the story like a child explains everything?
You can answer New Testament questions with the Old Testament stories, and this is how we're supposed to be reading the Bible. Do you need baptism to be saved? I don't know.
How many times does the Angel of Death go by the door? One time, is it saved? Does the Angel of Death leave you alone?
Is the Angel of Death pacified because they crossed the Red Sea? No, that already happened before. What happens to the people who never leave Egypt, never leave their sin, and never cross through the Red Sea?
Is the Angel of Death going to come back and get them? No, the Angel of Death was pacified once and for all by the blood on the door. And so the wages of sin are pacified once and for all by Christ on the cross.
Now should you get baptized? Yes, 100%. Jesus says to do it.
It would be like you putting the blood on the door, trusting in God for that part of it. The Angel of Death passes you over, and then you just say, "I'm just going to live in Egypt. I don't need to cross the Red Sea; I don't need to follow Moses; I don't need to endure until the end of the desert.
" But Dr Mike, what about verses like "Those who endure till the end will be saved"? Spoiler alert: the Hebrews didn't endure till the end; they died in the desert. What did endure till the end were the garments they were wearing that never wore out.
They had garments and sandals that never wore down in the 40 years. That's interesting. We see the Canaanites come to Joshua later with the opposite: worn-out clothing and worn-out garments from a long journey.
As a result, there's a mistaken identity based on their clothing, which causes the mistaken identity. Joshua gives them citizenship into Israel. Once he finds out they were lying, he doesn't take back the promise because it's based on his integrity, not their behavior.
But he makes them slaves to Israel. Gee, that sounds a lot like Jacob and Esau, where Jacob wears the clothing of Esau and gets the blessing from Isaac. Once they find out he was lying, it can't be taken back.
But then he enters bond servitude with Laban. Gee, that sounds a lot like Rachel and Leah, where Leah wears the garments of Rachel. Because of the garments, there's a mistaken identity.
Jacob marries her; once they find out that it was a lie, that Laban had tricked them, Jacob doesn't divorce her because it's based on his covenant to her, not her behavior. But then she enters a life of suffering. That's literally Egypt: the desert, the promised land, justification, sanctification, glorification.
It is all the same story; it's His story—Jesus. Dr Mike, I get the typology, and it's cool the way you're doing things, but you're just seeing things in the Old Testament and using pattern recognition. This is not really accurate; you can't really do it that way.
That's what all these teachers are going to say. That's the likely defense of these Christian teachers here on YouTube, and to them I would say this: Huh, okay, I see what you're saying—typology. So you can't use typology?
Okay, so that means Isaac carrying the wood up to his own sacrifice was not representative of Christ carrying his own cross? No, no, that one, that one's true. I see what you're saying; I agree with that one.
What about this one? There's a ram with its crown or horns stuck in a thicket of thorns. That might be why Jesus.
. . is wearing a crown of thorns, which is also an homage back to the curse of Genesis 3, where thorns and thistles grow out of the ground, showing that Jesus is taking the curse upon Himself.
No, no, that one's good too; I like that one. Okay, we'll go with those two. What about when Deborah and Barak are chasing Sisera?
He goes into the tent of Jael; she gives him milk to calm him down and put him to sleep, and then takes a tent peg and crushes his head with a hammer. Could that possibly be foreshadowing of crushing the head of the snake, where the tent peg is Jesus, the hammer is the Holy Spirit, and the hand holding it is the Father? This foreshadows the cross, which is a tent peg stuck into Golgotha, the place of the skull, and God hammering Christ down into it, crushing the head of the snake.
Huh, well that one's pretty deep. I don't know about that one; I see where you're going with it, but I don't know if I can confirm that or not. What about the snake on the pole?
Is that representative of Christ on the cross? Yeah, that one we agree on; I see that one too. Okay, so what you're really saying is that you're the self-appointed arbiter of what is and is not a type and shadow of Christ?
No, no, no; we agree that the blood on the door is Christ on the cross, right? And everyone's like, yeah, that one I can totally see. And so what you're really doing is admitting that the Old Testament is packed with types and shadows of Jesus Christ, but only the ones you're comfortable with.
And in three months, once you get comfortable with a couple more, now that becomes truth, and I'm no longer a heretic on those three points, but only until you see that specific typology will you approve it as a proper type and shadow of Christ. Could it be that you just don't have eyes to see? Could it be that you're missing the entire point of the Old Testament because you're convergently intellectualizing the New Testament?
When Jesus says God hides these things from the wise and the learned and reveals it to children, could it be that if you crucify your curiosity, submit to God, put your brain underneath subjugation to your spirit, and use the spirit as a child to read the Old Testament stories, you'll watch them come to life and realize that the Old Testament is the physical gospel? Is it possible that you're wrong, that this whole little theological network you figured out in your head is absolutely backwards? If you still can't see it, I want to take you through every story in the Old Testament and show you salvation in it.
In the garden, Adam and Eve know their nakedness; it represents their sinful nature, but they try to fix it themselves. They go get fig leaves, and they try to cover their nakedness with the works of their hands—literally saved by works. My sin is going to be covered by garments that I made myself.
This is the reason Christ curses the fig tree in the New Testament, because they tried to use it to make clothing of self-righteousness. God says the wages of sin is death, and so something has to die in order for your sin to be covered, so an animal is sacrificed, and they're given its skin so they can be recognized in its place—a mistaken identity based on garments. That's every story in the Bible.
This is why Jesus is naked on the cross while the Romans, which are Gentiles, are casting lots for his garments, which represents salvation—a covering of nakedness. The one who knew no sin became sin so that you might become the righteousness of God. The one who was clothed gave you his garments and became naked so you could be clothed in his place.
This is why Jesus was beaten to a point of not being recognizable—just like the animal in the Old Testament that had its skin ripped off. Jesus became unrecognizable so that you could be recognized in his place. This is why the Old Testament says don't mix two fabrics together; it's a physical representation of spiritual salvation.
Don't take the garments that God gave you, that something died for, and mix in your fig leaves. If Jacob sewed a little bit of his own garments into Esau's garments, the father might have caught him and recognized that it was a trick. When you mix your self-righteousness in with the imputed righteousness of Christ, you become recognized as yourself.
There's no mistake in identity; God catches you, and you will be condemned to hell for it. Talk about not being saved by works; if you're even recognized as yourself in heaven, you are screwed. The only shot you have is wearing the garments of Christ and walking boldly to the throne of the Father and Him looking at you but seeing Jesus.
This is why the Canaanites wore torn clothing to trick Joshua into thinking they weren't Canaanites. So then he gives them the citizenship into Israel; then he finds out they were lying, but he doesn't take back the promise. The reason the promise cannot be taken back is because when a king speaks, it becomes law.
This is why Daniel was thrown into the lion's den—they tricked the king into decreeing something, and the king himself had to stand by his own word. That's the same thing that happened with Jacob, Esau, and Isaac. That's the same thing that happened with the Canaanites and Joshua.
That's the same thing that happened with Rachel, Leah, and Jacob. Once the promise is given, it becomes law. God allows you to wear the clothing of Jesus; he.
. . Allows himself to be blinded to your sin as a result, and he gives you the inheritance that Jesus rightly deserved.
Salvation is a mistaken identity. This is why Ruth is covered in the garments of Boaz. This is why King David cuts off the edge of King Saul's garment and presents it as a form of salvation.
This is why Samson gives 30 Philistines garments at a wedding feast; and once he found out they cheated to figure out the riddle, he still honored the deal anyway because it was based on his integrity, not their behavior. This is why Joseph is given a coat of many colors, which represents the rainbow or the promise, and then it’s soaked in blood; then he enters into slavery. This is why the Hebrews are told to plunder the Egyptians and take garments, but then they enter into the desert, a form of spiritual slavery.
This is why Noah is naked in a cave, and he’s covered in garments. This is why the Good Samaritan finds a naked man, covers him in garments, puts him on a donkey, rides into the inn, and then pays his wage for him, and then says, “I’m leaving, but I’ll come back. ” Do you not see how that’s all about Jesus?
Do you not see how he gave us the shirt off his back, literally? This is why the woman with the discharge touches the edge of Jesus’s garments. This is why Judah slept with Tamar; she was literally wearing garments, and he couldn’t recognize her.
Every story in the Bible is about garments causing a mistaken identity and a promise being given because of it. This is what happens when you read the Bible like a child: it actually makes sense, it comes to life, it becomes a living word, it deepens your faith, and it gives you a relationship with God and a gratitude for salvation. And this is what I fear you guys are missing here on YouTube.
I love you guys; God bless you, but I am calling you out. This Mickey Mouse theology of reading the New Testament like a scholar is not going to cut it. Jesus said, “Unless you become like a little child, you will not inherit the kingdom of God.
” It’s time to stop reading the New Testament like a scholar and start reading the Old like a child.
