In 2012, aged 43, I discovered I have Asperger’s Syndrome. It explained why I have always felt different from other people, could be counted on to say something inappropriate, lived in a constant state of anxiety/hypervigilance beneath a veneer of impenetrable calm, would obsess about a subject until I knew absolutely everything there was to know about it, struggled to concentrate on subjects which did not interest me, was too uncoordinated and overwhelmed for any sport except running or swimming, and eventually dropped out of high school. It brings with it many difficulties but also some excellent gifts. There is now a link in the top menu to articles and videos related to Asperger’s Syndrome, focussing mostly on adults, which I have found helpful or interesting.
In a Land from which Cainites were being dispossessed, Israel herself would not only judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, but provide cities of refuge to the “firstborn” Levites as a gift.
The Avenger of Blood
Like Adam, Cain would not “bear” his sin. But unlike Adam, Cain was rejecting the covering of animal substitutes. As the “offspring” of the serpent (kinghood without priesthood), he only understood law as tyranny. There was no place for mercy (Atonement) because mercy required Covenant confession.
For seizing the devoted plunder of Jericho, Achan was stoned to death and burned with fire, along with his children, livestock, and all his possessions. This judgment appears to contradict Deuteronomy 24:16, which forbids the punishment of children for the sins of their fathers.
It seems that the solution is architectural. Here’s an excerpt from the forthcoming Sweet Counsel:
At that time the Lord said to Joshua,
“Make flint knives and circumcise
the sons of Israel a second time.”
Was Israel disobedient in its failure to circumcise every male born in the wilderness? The Lord never chastised them for this. If this lapse in the practice of circumcision was in the plan of God, what was the purpose of that plan? The example which first comes to mind is the circumcision of the firstborn son of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26.
In the Bible, everything is confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (James Jordan notes that this is the basis for Hebrew parallelism and also verbal pleonasm. See Symbolism – A Manifesto.) An example of a “dual” witness from God would include the two dreams given to Joseph, and the two dreams given to Pharaoh. We see each Covenant confirmed by two witnesses as well. The Mosaic Covenant was a double witness at three levels: the two tablets of the Law, the second set of tablets, then a second giving of the Law in Deuteronomy.
A sign was given to Gideon to prove that God would save Israel by Gideon’s hand. He requested a second sign, and rather than chiding him, the Lord acquiesced. The Lord Himself asks us to prove all things. That explains the double sign, but not the ingredients of the signs, the fleece and the threshing floor. Fortunately, the consistency of biblical symbolism and structure not only gives us the answer, it reveals the events as a type of the events which followed, and, typologically, also shines light on the process of the first century apostolic witness.
“Just as Circumcision made impossible a global corruption,
so paedobaptism makes impossible a global Gospel.”
Part 1 here.
With so many young people leaving the Church, it is no wonder that there is a push to renew an understanding of biblical Covenant. Giving our children a profound sense of their “Covenant identity” is a crucial means of re-establishing the Covenant framework which has been neglected. Unfortunately, those pushing for these things are going about it in entirely the wrong way, because they are re-establishing the wrong Covenant.
or Where Kenneth Gentry Is Wrong on the Revelation
Part 1 here.
I’ve been meaning to write this post since I wrote Part 1 (over two years ago). A friend’s recent question concerning Kenneth Gentry’s lectures on the Revelation encouraged me to bite the bullet and bust a gut and get it done. The question is this: Is the Revelation to be interpreted in the light of Josephus’ Jewish War, or in the light of the Bible itself?