Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts.

From the blog of Mark Horne: Solomon Says.

The book of Judges is not a lesson in how Israel needed a king. It is the opposite.

I’m not saying that Judges rules out the possibility that a righteous king could have helped with some of Israel’s problems. Moses had allowed that the tribes of Israel might choose a king in the future, and gave them God’s rules for a king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

But Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts. From the story of Gideon onward, Judges is a history of rulers who began toying with dynastic ambitions. Then the book ends with two horrific stories. In those stories we meet the statement, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 19:25 ESV; see also 18:1; 19:1). But those stories are about degenerate Levites and come at the end of a history of God stopping his chosen judges from becoming kings.

By the way, after David and Solomon, I don’t see any evidence that Israel (divided into two kingdoms) was more righteous or civilized than the time of the judges. My sense of it is that there were more bad kings before (and leading to) the exile than there were bad judges before Saul. If I’m right, then the common reading of Judges requires more explanation to even make sense.

My understanding of a king is someone who holds a hereditary office. A king’s heir will be king if he outlives his father. At the time of Judges, Israel was ruled, above the level of local clans, by judges 1. who gained a reputation as faithful teachers and arbitrators, and 2. who assumed executive powers in times of national emergency.

The Framework of the Story of Judges

Looking at Judges as a unified book, it begins with two overviews: the first of the initial conquest and compromises with the Canaanites and the second explaining the cycle of judgment for idolatry (1:1-2:5 / 2:6-3:6). It ends, as I mentioned above, with two stories, one about an idolatrous Levite and then another about a Levite and the extermination of one of Israel’s own tribes (chapters 17 & 18 / 19-21). Interestingly, the first overview contains the tale of a marriage and the last story begins and ends with marriages as well.

Between those brackets, there is a history of Israel’s judges. For my purposes I will skip over Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and Deborah & Barak and deal with Gideon.

Gideon the Turning Point

The role of Gideon in permanently altering the history and culture of Israel may be signified by him being the first judge raised up by a personal visitation by the Angel of the Lord (6:11). Gideon is a faithful judge who delivers Israel from the Midianites. In the glow of victory, however, he doesn’t stay completely on the right track.

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian.” Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” And Gideon said to them, “Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil.” (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.) And they answered, “We will willingly give them.” And they spread a cloak, and every man threw in it the earrings of his spoil. And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was 1,700 shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments and the pendants and the purple garments worn by the kings of Midian, and besides the collars that were around the necks of their camels. And Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah. And all Israel whored after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family. So Midian was subdued before the people of Israel, and they raised their heads no more. And the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon.

Judges 8:22–28 ESV

Gideon, though he fought against false gods, established a shrine for idolatry in Israel. (I am sure it was treated as a way to worship the God of Israel, not the god of the Canaanites, but it was still a violation of God’s law. The only place for authorized worship was the Tabernacle.)

But the story shows another problem. Gideon had correctly refused to start a ruling dynasty: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” But he was inconsistent. He had 70 sons. How? The text doesn’t make us speculate about marrying a female superhero: “Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30 ESV). Additionally, he married a concubine who stayed in her hometown, which Gideon ruled from afar. He named his son by her Abimelech, “My father is king.”

Gideon obviously was still holding on to dreams of regal status. And, in doing so, he was violating a rule given by Moses to all future kings: “And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV). Gideon wasn’t just acting like a king, but like a pagan king. He set a precedent that led to the fall of Solomon.

Abimelech used his royal status to convince his people he would be preferable to rule by Gideon’s other sons. He then massacred all his brothers, with only one escaping. Gideon’s dynastic ambition led to murder and civil war.

Who Wants to Be King?

One surviving half-brother of Abimelech spoke publicly about him in a parable:

The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, “Reign over us.” But the olive tree said to them, “Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?’ And the trees said to the fig tree, ‘You come and reign over us.” But the fig tree said to them, “Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?” And the trees said to the vine, “You come and reign over us.” But the vine said to them, “Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?” Then all the trees said to the bramble, “You come and reign over us.” And the bramble said to the trees, “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

Judges 9:8–15 ESV

In the context, this parable was aimed at Abimelech and those who thought they were wise to support him in his coup. It basically says that productive people are too busy producing to rule over other men. Unproductive people want the power and end up destroying the productive. His prediction came true and Abimelech destroyed many.

Is this the kind of story that you put in a book about how Israel needed a king?

The Dynastic Ambition

Despite the ruinous results of Gideon’s inconsistency, other judges followed his example by attempting dynasties. Nothing bad is said about the next judge, Tola, but then:

After him arose Jair the Gileadite, who judged Israel twenty-two years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys, and they had thirty cities, called Havvoth-jair to this day, which are in the land of Gilead. And Jair died and was buried in Kamon.

Judges 10:3–5 ESV

Later, a couple of other judges followed the same practice. Ibzan “had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he gave in marriage outside his clan, and thirty daughters he brought in from outside for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9 ESV). And, after the judge Elon, Abdon “had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys, and he judged Israel eight years” (Judges 12:14 ESV).

In fact, the pattern of the story from Gideon to Abdon is organized around dynastic ambitions. It forms what is called a “chiasm.”

The Story of Jephthah

Jephthah is the tale of a marginalized outsider who ended up delivering his hometown and ruling over it. It is a wonderful story, rendered incomprehensible to us by the idea that he slaughtered his daughter as a human sacrifice (Judges 11.29-40). I am not going to argue it here, but I don’t think the word translated “burnt offering” (that doesn’t say burnt or offering in the Hebrew) refers to human sacrifice. Yes, if you have a certain kind of sacrifice on the altar, it is referred to by that word. But this is a different context.

Rather than think Jephthah was someone who would casually offer the murder of one of his household, we ought to be amazed that, unlike Gideon and others, he was not trying to be a king. He had one and only one daughter. He had refused to violate the rule made for kings.

But he still wanted to be king and he wanted God’s permission. So He promised God the first person who came out to meet him–which would mean he (or she) would become a servant to the Tabernacle. Obviously, he was hoping the person would be one of his servants. But that wasn’t what God wanted.

His daughter mourned her future without a husband and children, not her alleged impending death. She would become a Tabernacle servant and never be married. Jephthah’s line was at an end.

The Structure of Judges Hinges on Gideon’s Sin

Here is a chiasm I got from James B. Jordan:

For those who want more data, Jim Jordan’s commentary is unbeatable. Also, his chiastic analysis is found here. I relied on it and copied most of it, though I interpret Jephthah’s dynastic aspirations a bit more positively.

“No King in Israel”

As Judges says, God is supposed to be the king. The failure is pinned, to the extent that a single failure is responsible for national sin, on the perverse Levites. Levites were the tribe of pastors and teachers in Israel. When they failed, there ceased to be a king in Israel. The last two stories are meant to explain why Israel was without a king. The Levites were supposed to teach the people that God was their king.

It defies the entire message of the book to interpret Judges as claiming that Gideon of Jephthah or someone else was supposed to become a king.

So What about Your Kingdom?

In my book (Amazon, Kindle), I propose that Proverbs presupposes that we are all kings. Whatever Judges may teach us about society and law, it also has a message for each one of us. The autonomous quest for kingship led to civil war in Israel, and Solomon tells us that one finds real power in acknowledging God as king:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.
It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.

Proverbs 3:5–8 ESV

By doing what Solomon says, you can become a unified ruler of yourself rather than one who is at war with himself because at war with God.

“The seven days of Genesis 1 are a chiasm, and therefore these sections are a chiasm. The Adam who doesn’t come to rule at the beginning is answered by the Adam who does come to rule at the end.”

Adapted from James B. Jordan, “The Life of Jacob,” Biblical Horizons No. 258, July 2017.

Genesis has a sevenfold structure. Many books of the Bible, including Revelation, have the same structure. The book is marked out in sections by a phrase that is found about ten times in the book: these are the generations of. Chapter 5:1: “These are the generations of Adam.” Chapter 6:9: “These are the generations of Noah.” The word “generations” in Hebrew is toledot. The “ot” is a feminine plural ending. “Sabbaot”—Lord of sabbaoth—Lord of hosts—armies. “Im” is masculine plural—“Elohim”—plural of “El” or God—majestic God, or many gods. Toledot is the plural of generation—toledah, and the reason I mention that is that these sections of Genesis are called toledah sections.

There are ten of these sections, but if you look at it more carefully you notice that some of the sections are grouped so that we come up with seven sections. The structure of Genesis consists of an introduction and then seven sections that correspond to the seven days of Genesis 1…

This sequence of seven speech actions is the way God always works with the world… That is why Genesis has seven sections, and why the first seven books of the Bible follow the same format. Genesis is the book of the first day. Exodus is where the firmament is made—the firmament people—that is the Tabernacle. Leviticus has to do with flesh and blood, plants and seeds. Numbers has to do with stars. Deuteronomy has to do with the organisation of a group of people. Joshua has to do with planting of a people int he land. Judges has to do with sin bringing a time to its fulfillment on the Sabbath Day. The Spirit works that way, and that is why the Bible is written as it is.

Now, the first section we have is the generations of the heaven and earth, what the heaven and earth brought forth. The heaven and earth bring forth—they marry—and bring forth humanity. What is generated by the heavens and the earth? Genesis 2:4, “This is the generation of the heaven and the earth after they were created in the day Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” Verse 7, “Then Yahweh God formed man of dust (not clay) of the ground,”—that’s the earthy part—“and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”—that’s the heavenly part. The Spirit comes from heaven into dust, the marriage of earth and heaven, and man is formed. That is what the heavens and the earth generate. They generate Adam. And Adam generates Eve, and Adam and Eve generate Cain and Abel and Seth. That’s the generation of the heaven and earth, and what the heavens and earth bring forth is Adam.

This corresponds to day one—the creation of heaven and earth out of formlessness corresponds to the creation of man. The earth was formless and the Spirit of God moved in. Dust is about as formless as you can get. A brick has form. A rock has form. Clay has form. Dust has no form. Man wasn’t made of clay, but of dust. It is formless, and then God’s Spirit comes into it as a parallel to day one. In Genesis 2 the creation of man corresponds to the creation of light on day one. Genesis 2 has the same sevenfold fold outline as Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 the phrase “The Lord God did” follow the same sequence as in Genesis 1, and forming man is parallel to making light on the first day, which is followed throughout Bible. Human beings are lights, stars, etc.

The comes the separation of light and darkness on day one. “God separated the light from the darkness, he saw the light was good. He called the light day, and the darkness he called night.” That separation theme is carried through in this section of Genesis by the judgment on man where he is separated from the Garden, and then primarily the separation of Cain and Abel into a darkened and light kind of people. This second section goes down to the end of Genesis 4.

The next section is the generations of Adam. Chapter 5 says, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” and then it talks about Adam. Adam had a son in is likeness named Seth, so Adam generates Seth, and then Enosh, Kenan, Mehalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah.

This corresponds to the establishment on the second day of the firmament to separate waters above from waters below. The godly line of Seth is the human form of that firmament, and the corruption of that line is answered by the removal of the firmament and the re-coalescence of the waters in the flood.

The godly line stands between, as Adam was supposed to do from the beginning, heaven and earth. There was a mountain rising up out of the earth, and on the mountain stood the priest who mediated between God and man. Symbolically speaking, this was Adam’s position in the firmament—below God and above the world. That is the position of the godly line that comes from Adam, the Sethites. The creation of the Sethite race, as opposed to the Cainite race, is equivalent to the formation of the firmament, linked with that aspect of creation week. This is the second toledot section in Genesis and it relates to the firmament. All of the things made in the first week have a human equivalent now in this story. This group of human beings is placed between heaven and earth.

Noah brings forth Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the whole “table of nations” comes from them. Just as in Day 3 of Genesis 1 there are two section where land and sea are separated, and then the plants are put on the earth—two actions on the third day. So here, the separation of land and sea is answered by the flood, and then the fact that as the flood receded we have a new separation of land and sea. This is very much the same language as in Genesis 1.

And then the multiplication of plants on the land is answered by the table of nations in Chapter 10. “These are the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth…” This is another subsection of toledot. The 70 nations grow up, which are the plants on the earth. Does the book of Genesis symbolize humans as plants? Yes, it does, and that is clear from the very first chapters when God says that the earth will bring forth thorns and thistles. Man is made of earth, and what is the next thing that happens after God says the earth will bring forth thorns and good things? First there is Cain, then Abel. But that isn’t where it starts. It starts when God says that the seed of the woman will defeat the seed of the serpent. Women don’t have seeds in a biological sense. In Genesis 1 the plants are said to have seeds about 8 or 9 times and establishes what is meant. In vs. 11 God says, “Let the earth sprout forth vegetation, plants seeding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seed in them on the earth.” And the earth brought forth vegetation, verbs seeding seeds after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them after their kind. On and on the word “seed” goes. I have given you every plant seeding seed, and every tree having fruit yielding seed.

The seed of a plant comes when it blooms and has seed to become the next generation. The seed of the woman comes when she blooms by getting pregnant and has the next generation. The seed of the woman is the child, but this is plant language. So to make people analogous to plants is right there in Genesis. We are in the third section of Genesis, and we read about all these nations, which are plants growing and spreading all over the earth.

Then for the fourth day section we have the generations of Shem—just a short section. The fourth day is when the lights are put in the heavens, and the Shemites are the new light bearers to rule the heavens. Genesis 9:26 says, “Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.” Shem has the responsibility for worship. Japheth needs to dwell in the tents of Shem, which means to come to worship. Shem is designated as the line of the covenant seed, and that will later be specified to be Weber, and then Abram, then Isaac, and then Jacob. This is a series of narrowing specification. This is the firmament line of light bearers who maintain God’s truth in the firmament position between heaven and earth.

The fifth section in Genesis is the generations of Terah. What did Terah bring forth? He brought forth Abraham, so this is the Abraham narrative (Genesis 11:27). Terah brought forth Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Corresponding to Day 5 when great swarming creatures were made and God gave his first command to any creature, these themes of multiplication and law are highlighted in the story of Abram, which Genesis 11:27-25:11 delineate. In fact, this theme of multiplication and swarms of people is greatly emphasized here. God says to Abraham, “Your seed will be like the stars of the heavens, like the sand of the sea,” and not only that, Abraham’s brother, Nahor, has twelve children (Genesis 22:20-24). The whole theme of having twelve children starts here, which is multiplication. If you have twelve children you haven’t just reproduced, you have multiplied.

It is part of the “patience” theme that is one of the major themes of Genesis. Abraham has to look over at his brother and say, “He has twelve children,” and then Isaac has to look over at Ishmael and say the same thing while his wife is barren. Abraham has to say the same thing, finally he has just one child. At every point the believers are being told to wait and be patient, while God is giving numerous children to all the unbelievers, or at least those not marked by Divine election to service.

The next section is the generations of Ishmael and Isaac, two section that need to be grouped together as one. In Genesis 25:12 are the twelve sons of Ishmael who are twelve princes, and then vs. 10 gives the generations of Isaac.

We have the generations of Terah, which is the Abraham narrative, and then we have the generations of Isaac, which is the Jacob narrative. You will notice there is no section called the generations of Abraham. There is no Isaac section. There is an Abraham section, a Jacob section, and the ones ones are the generations of Jacob which is the Joseph/Judah section. The Jacob section is a very carefully constructed chiasm, as is the Abraham section. These are very carefully constructed literary units. The first part of Isaac’s life is in the Abraham section when he is a son, and the second half is in the Jacob section where he is a father.

The generations of Ishmael and Isaac correspond to Day 6. Just as Day 6 had two sections—the creation of animals and the creation of man—the toledoth of Ishmael corresponds to the creation of helpful animals because the Ishaelistes are not enemies of Israel Ishmael is regenerated, and is in heaven. The Bible tells us so. They are helpers to Israel. And then the seance half of Day 6 is the creation of man, which corresponds to the generations of Isaac, and is concerned with Jacob, the man who is able to wrestle with God and prevail. This is what it means to be a real, true godly man.

And then the last section is the generations of Esau and Jacob. Genesis 36 is the generation of Esau. That is Cain, the bad thorny plant. The generation of Jacob is the story of Joseph and Judah that has to do with sabbath rest—coming into rest, enthronement, feeding the entire world, and living in the best part of the land. Trace it through in Genesis. It says that the area of the city of Sodom was like the circle of the Jordan, like the Garden of Eden. Then it says that the land of Goshen was the best part of Egypt, and it was like the circle of the Jordan. Being put in Goshen was the equivalent to being put back in the Garden of Eden. Genesis ends with a return to full redemption and Sabbath rest in the story of Joseph. Everything broken has been fixed, at least partially. When we get to Exodus we find that it falls apart. It is Jesus who has to bring the full and final restoration. The generations of Esau in chapter 36 point to the fall of man, which happened on the Sabbath. A false Sabbath rest is given to Esau as he multiplies and takes control, while true Sabbath rest is given to the godly in the land of Goshen.

This is a general chiastic structure. The seven days of Genesis 1 are a chiasm, and therefore these sections are a chiasm. The Adam who doesn’t come to rule at the beginning is answered by the Adam who does come to rule at the end. Adam was supposed to mature and rule, but he didn’t. Joseph does. Adam makes his own clothes. Joseph is given robes by those who honor him. Adam is not honored and not given robes—just bloody animal skins.

It still seems a bit odd for the title of the Abraham narrative to be called the generations of Terah, since it turns out to be all about Abraham. The reason for that is that it is the seed of the woman, the second Adam, who is going to accomplish everything. At every point in Genesis it is the son, the next person in line who is going to accomplish tings, who is going to save the world and be the Messiah. That is the first thing Eve says when she gives birth to Cain. That is why the book is laid out the way it is—the book of generations—the father isn’t adequate, so the son has to come and accomplish the mission. That son turns out to be inadequate, so his son has to come and do it until the coming of Jesus who is the fully capable Son.

Stolen from Tim Nichols

“If we are going to be good interpreters of Scripture, it’s not enough to grasp the didactic literature. We need to learn to read the higher levels of language as well.”

A couple years ago, I read Paul Graham’s ruminations on higher- and lower-level languages in Hackers and Painters. Although he’s talking about computer languages, his insights have bearing on biblical language and hermeneutics. So bear with me while I lay out some of the basic points, and then we’ll look at the applications.

• The very lowest level of language has a very small number of things it can do. Every level up combines those basic instructions in increasingly complex ways to get tasks done.
• Anything a computer can do, you can do in binary. But you can’t do some things in Basic that you can do in C++, and you can’t do some things in C++ that you can do in Lisp (Graham’s examples; I wouldn’t know). Lower-level languages lack the abstractions and features that higher-level languages have.
• Perhaps equally important, many of the things you can do in all 3 languages take more steps in Basic than C++, and more steps in C++ than Lisp. The code is longer, the further down the hierarchy you go. Longer code tends to breed more mistakes, because humans don’t deal well with obsessive levels of detail.
• Conversely, the higher the level of language, the faster you can work. If it takes 3x longer to write in (say) C++ than in Lisp, and your competitor is writing in C++, he can’t keep up with you. A feature that takes you a month to program takes him 3 to duplicate. A feature that takes him 3 months to program, you can duplicate in 1. When you’re ahead, you’re way ahead. When you’re behind, you catch up quickly.
• A programmer thinks primarily in a certain language. Down the hierarchy, he can see that all the languages are lower level than his preferred one, because “they don’t even have [feature].” Up the hierarchy from his primary language, the languages just look weird, because he doesn’t think in them. So they have these higher-order abstractions that he can’t quite grasp, or he can’t see what anybody would ever want them for.

One other observation that is going to be important for this: good programmers often don’t solve a really difficult problem. They formulate another (easier) problem that is the practical equivalent of the hard one, and then solve that.

So given that, the analogy for biblical studies:

• Basic linguistic/textual analysis tools like sentence diagramming or outlining are like machine code. There’s a very limited number of options, and it’s very laborious to describe what’s happening in the text.
• Didactic literature is the next level up. It’s using the linguistic options available in a pretty basic, transparent way.
• Narrative comes after that. While narrative is often grammatically simpler than didactic (paratactic rather than hypotactic, and so on), there are some very complex things going on that you really can’t get at with a sentence diagram. The tools you use to decode didactic literature aren’t sufficient to interpret narrative well.
• Proverbs, parables and typology are very high-level, an order of magnitude beyond narrative.

So if you think in Didactic, and you do it well enough to really have it and know you have it, then you know you don’t quite have a handle on Narrative. Narrative operates with a whole set of signifiers that your interpretive grid doesn’t know what to do with. And you really have an awful time with Typology. (This was the case for the folks that trained me in exegesis. We had a great set of tools for didactic literature, and we knew we didn’t have a parallel set of tools for narrative. And for typology? Forget it! One of our hermeneutics texts seriously claimed that we could only identify something as a type if the New Testament (didactic) literature said it was!)

Conversely, if you can operate in Typology, you can certainly handle Narrative. And when you go to prove a point using Narrative, your argument makes no sense to a Didactic-speaker, because your reasoning just doesn’t translate into his language (and it’s worse if you use Typology!) You’re using higher-order abstractions that he simply doesn’t have. If we are going to be good interpreters of Scripture, it’s not enough to grasp the didactic literature. We need to learn to read the higher levels of language as well.

And then, because we are called to speak like God speaks, we need to learn to speak at higher levels of language, too. It comes in handy. I was having breakfast with a group of friends a while back, and one of the guys was making his case for education outside the home (and against homeschooling). His argument centered around the impossibility of sheltering your kids from the prevailing culture forever, and homeschoolers’ inability to cope with the culture when they were suddenly thrown into it at age 19 or so. He took maybe 10 minutes, and early on I told him I was going to rebut him. As he reached the end of his case, someone pointed out what time it was, and he said “Oh, crap! I gotta go!” As he was getting up from his chair to put on his coat, he said to me “But you were going to argue against that. I’m sorry about this, but can you say it fast?”

I said, “‘As arrows in the hands of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth.’ You want to send your arrows out in the midst of your enemies — but you don’t let your enemies mess with the arrows while the glue on the fletchings is still wet.”

He got it. I was able to cleanly counterpoint his 10-minute speech in 2 sentences because I can operate at a parabolic/typological level of discourse. Of course, that’s not the same thing as winning the argument, and I’d have really liked to have more time. But I laid out a relevant objection to his point of view and gave us room for further discussion. Not bad for 2 sentences.

The book of Esther describes the fulfillment of the battle of Gog and Magog

An excerpt from “Esther in the Midst of Covenant History” by James B. Jordan (2001)

The battle of Gog and Magog is found in Ezekiel 38-39. Ezekiel presents the destruction of Jerusalem as simultaneously a judgment on the whole world (Ezekiel 24-33). After this, he prophesies that the people will return to the land. Sometime after this there would be a time of trouble and the land would be invaded by an army made up of many peoples under the leadership of Prince Gog. In my book Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World I followed many older commentators in referring this to the invasion of the land by Antiochus Epiphanes.

After this huge battle, a new Temple is built out of the spoils. This follows the pattern of victory followed by house building that we see everywhere in the Bible. The Tabernacle was built of the spoils of Egypt, and the Temple of the spoils of the Philistines. Ezekiel’s Temple is described in a vision of sacred geometry, but it was intended to apply to the Restoration era. The actual building erected by Joshua and Zerubbabel (Haggai 1-2; Zechariah 1-6) and glorified by Ezra was the literal fulfillment of the visions of Ezekiel 40-48. The changes in sacrificial administration set out in these visions were implemented in the Restoration Temple. I noted in Through New Eyes that this was the view of Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and E. W. Hengstenberg.

I wasn’t quite happy with this, since it puts the battle of Gog and Magog out of sequence. Antiochus Epiphanes invaded the land years after the Temple was initially rebuilt and then made glorious. Is there another event that better fits as the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-30? I believe there is. I suggest that the book of Esther describes the fulfillment of the battle of Gog and Magog.

Let me make a detour into Zechariah. Zechariah sees the Kingdom in the form of a grove of myrtle trees (Zech. 1:8). It is significant that Esther’s original Hebrew name, Hadassah, is the word for “myrtle” (Esth. 2:7). Moreover, Zechariah prophesies the events of Esther in Zechariah 2:8-9. He states that after the Glory of God had moved back into the Temple, the nations would seek to plunder Israel. God would wave His hand over them, however, so that they would be plundered by their slaves, those they were oppressing: Israel. This event would be a confirming seal to them that God had indeed reestablished the Covenant with them.

Of course, it is in Esther that we see a conspiracy to plunder the Jews, which backfires with the result that the Jews plundered their enemies. This event is then ceremonially sealed with the institution of the annual Feast of Purim. The book of Esther is frequently overlooked in the Old Testament, and its meaning has been widely debated. If my suggestion is correct, however, we now have a good idea of its purpose and place in the canon.

With this in mind, we can look back at Ezekiel. Ezekiel 34 states that God will act as Good Shepherd to Israel, and will bring them back into the land. He continues this theme in Ezekiel 36, saying that God will make a new covenant with Israel. The inauguration of this new covenant, which we can call the Restoration Covenant, is described in Zechariah 3, where God removes the filth from Joshua the High Priest and restores the Temple and priesthood. Of course, Ezekiel’s language in Ezekiel 36:25-27 is picked up in the New Testament and applied to the New Covenant, but we need to understand that the first fulfillment of his words was in the Restoration Covenant, which was of course a type of the New Covenant.

Ezekiel continues in Ezekiel 37 with the vision of the valley of dry bones. The Spirit of God would be given in greater measure than ever before (though of course not as great as at Pentecost in Acts 2), and the result would be a restoration of the people. No longer would there be a cultural division between Judah and Ephraim, but all would be together as a new people. (Their new name as a whole would be “Judahite, Jew.”)

At this point, Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all the world will attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense. The result is that all nations will see the victory, and “the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward” (Ezk. 39:21-23). This is the same idea as we found in Zechariah 2:9, “Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me,” which I argued above most likely refers to the events of Esther.

Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Darius, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua and Zerubbabel and shortly before rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah.

Nehemiah established a social polity among the people and rebuilt the physical walls of Jerusalem. Since Ezekiel 40-48 is concerned with the fullness of the Temple and also with the reconfiguration of the social polity of the land, it is possible to maintain that the central fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 is found in the labors of Nehemiah. It should be noted that the prophecy of Ezekiel 40-48 came in the first month of 572 B.C., exactly 70 years prior to Nehemiah’s request to Darius to go to Jerusalem. This fact should not be discounted, for there are several 70-year predictions operating in this period of history, as we saw in our studies in Daniel.

Thus, the interpretive hypothesis I am suggesting (until someone shoots it down) is this: Ezekiel 34-37 describes the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, and implies the initial rebuilding of the physical Temple. Ezekiel 38-39 describes the attack of Gog (Haman) and his confederates against the Jews. Finally, Ezekiel 40-48 describes in figurative language the situation as a result of the work of Nehemiah.

Looking at a few details, we see that the victory of the Jews over their enemies in Esther resulted in the deaths of 75,310 people (Esth. 9:10,15,16). This number of deaths is commensurate with the extent of the slaughter pictured in Ezekiel 38-39. The Jews were told that they might plunder those they slew (Esth. 8:11), but they did not take any of the plunder for their personal use (Esth. 9:10,15,16), which surely implies that it was regarded as holy and was sent to adorn the Temple.

Another interesting correspondence lies in the fact that the book of Esther repeatedly calls attention to the “127 provinces” of the Persian Empire, and in connection with the attack on the Jews, speaks of the “provinces which were from India to Cush” (Esth. 8:9). This goes well with the way Ezekiel 38 starts out, for there a number of nations are mentioned from all over the world, all of which were within the boundaries of the Persian Empire (Ezk. 38:1-6). In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages.

Another possible cue is found in the prominent use of the Hebrew word for “multitude” in Ezekiel 39:11, 15, and 16. That word is hamon, which is spelled in Hebrew almost exactly like the name Haman. It was Haman, of course, who engineered the attack on the Jews in Esther. In Hebrew, both words have the same “tri-literal root” (hmn). Only the vowels are different. (Though in hamon, the vowel “o” is indicated by the vowel-letter vav.) According to Ezekiel 39:11 and 15, the place where the army of Gog is buried will be known as the Valley of Hamon-Gog, and according to verse 16, the nearby city will become known as Hamonah. Moreover, the words Agagite and Gog are the same in Hebrew, if we subtract the vowels and vowel-letters. Thus, in Hebrew consonants, Hamon-Gog and Haman the Agagite are identical. It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the inter-testamental era, I would be struck by these correspondences, and they would cause me to consider whether or not they are related.

Yet another corroboration, to my mind, lies in the fact that Haman was an Amalekite. He was an “Agagite,” a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag who was captured by Saul and hacked to pieces by Samuel (1 Sam. 15; Esth. 3:1). What Esther records is the last great attack upon Israel by Amalek, and the final destruction of Amalek. Now, Numbers 24:20 states that “Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction.” The term “nation” is more closely associated with the Japhethites than with the Hamites or the Shemites. We don’t know which “nation” Amalek was, since it is not listed in Genesis 10, but it would seem to have been a Japhethite one.¹I disagree with Jim on the identity of Amalek. He notes below that Amalek is the name of one of Esau’s grandsons, presumably after this “nation” of Amalek, but I believe that this was in fact the original Amalek, and thus “first” means the firstborn of Jacob, a false brother who would trouble Israel until the end of the Old Covenant era, the Herods being “Idumeans” or Edomites. For more discussion, see Everlasting Arms.

At any rate, what is striking about Ezekiel 38 is that the nations listed as conspiring against Israel are Japhethite and Hamite nations seldom if ever mentioned outside the primordial list in Genesis 10. Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Beth-togarmah, Tarshish, and Gomer are all Japhethite nations from Genesis 10:2-4. Cush, Put, Sheba, and Dedan are Hamite peoples from Genesis 10:6-7. Thus, the notion is of a conspiracy of primordial peoples against the true remnant of the Shemites. This certainly squares well with the fact that Haman was the preeminent representative of Amalek, the first of the nations.

Moreover, Amalek is the name of one of Esau’s grandsons, a mighty chieftain (Gen. 36:16). As Genesis 36 shows, Esau’s sons and grandsons completely merged with the Horites of Mount Seir to become the semi-Canaanite nation of Edom. From Genesis 14:6-7 we learn that the hill country of the original Amalekites was close to the Horites of Mount Seir. By giving his son the name Amalek, Eliphaz, son of Esau, was clearly forging another link. Thereafter, the Amalekites are not only gentiles, but also Edomites. Haman in Esther is not only a spokesman of the gentile opposition to God, but also of the continuing hatred of Esau for Jacob.

The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire. At present, this argument does not have much force with me because of the fact that this entire section of Ezekiel is so highly symbolic in tone anyway. Chapter 37 gives us the vision of the valley of dry bones, after all, and chapters 40-48 are a thoroughly geometrical vision of the Restoration Covenant. Thus, I can see no difficulty in assuming that Ezekiel is picturing the final world-wide attack of Amalek and his cohorts under the imagery of an attack on the land, imagery derived from the book of Judges (cp. Jud. 18:7,10,27 with Ezk. 38:8,11,14).

Moreover, since the land of the Jews was part of the empire of Ahasuerus-Darius, and the attack on the Jews took place throughout the empire, it is clear that the Jews in the land were under assault in Esther. Thus, even if someone wants to press the idea of an invasion of the land of promise, Esther still portrays it. God’s people throughout the empire, including those in the land, were under assault.

A final corroboration of this interpretive hypothesis comes from what we might call the “Amalek Pattern” in the Bible. Note in Genesis 12-15 that Abram moves into the land after escaping Pharaoh (ch. 12), settles down and experiences peace and prosperity (ch. 13), and then faces an invasion of a worldwide alliance of nations (ch. 14). This alliance captures Lot, but Abram rescues him, after which a Gentile priest blesses Abram (ch. 14). Finally, after this, God appears to Abram in a vision and makes covenant with him (ch. 15), guaranteeing him a “house.”

Now look at Moses: After escaping Pharaoh (Ex. 1-14), the people are given food and water in the wilderness (Ex. 16). Then Amalek attacks and kills many Lot-like stragglers (Ex. 17; Dt. 25:17-19). Moses defeats Amalek, after which a Gentile priest (Jethro) blesses the people, and then God appears in the Cloud and makes covenant with them (Ex. 18-24), including the building of a “house” (the Tabernacle).

The same themes show up in the history of David: After escaping Pharaoh Saul (1 Sam. 18-26), David finds a place of rest in the “wilderness” at Ziklag (ch. 27). Then Amalek attacks and steals David’s wives (ch. 30), but David defeats them. Following this, a Gentile priest-king (Hiram of Tyre, who as a Gentile king was also a priest) blesses David (2 Sam. 5:11-12), and then God appears to David in a vision, promising him a “house” (2 Sam. 7).

In this pattern, the attack of Gentile world powers (Gen. 14) is associated with the attack of Amalek (Ex. 17; 1 Sam. 27). As can plainly be seen, the same pattern recurs in the Restoration. After departing from Babylon, the people settle in the land and experience a degree of peace. Then comes the attack of Amalek and Gog & Magog. After this, Gentile priest-kings sponsor the return of Nehemiah to restore the land and the “house.”

While it would be fascinating to follow up this theme in the Gospels, Acts, and possibly Revelation, enough has been said to indicate that it is a recurring pattern, and one that lends some support to the hypothesis that the attack of Gog and Magog is fulfilled in the book of Esther.

An Open Letter To My Former Tribe

by Tim Nichols

I was reared in a conservative evangelical tradition that was heavy on strict grammatical-historical hermeneutics. I have repented of that school of thought in favor of following the examples set by the NT authors themselves.

Look, you know I love you, but there’s no point in mincing words here: you guys suck at reading narrative. I mean, it’s terrible. Either you reduce the story to a disconnected set of little morality tales for Sunday school kids, or you chop it up into however many dispensations or homogenize it all into two covenants (or both). At best, you think it’s there as a means to the end of teaching “doctrine,” by which you mean something like systematic theology. In practice, of course, many of you mostly ignore the narrative in favor of the church epistles, especially in your preaching. To be fair, you’re mostly pretty good at the church epistles. Straight-out didactic literature is your forte.

But look, the narrative is three quarters of the Bible. Paul says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and your hermeneutics courses are all a-flutter with warnings against “getting doctrine from narrative.” This means — it has to mean — that there’s something wrong with your hermeneutics. As long as you insist that your hermeneutics are fine, you’re going to continue to have the same problem, to wit: you don’t know how to read three quarters of the Bible. As soon as you contemplate some sort of hermeneutical repentance, though, you feel as though you’re about to throw open the door to every perversion and silliness that hermeneutical laxity has ever visited upon the Church. How can you proceed? How can you gain the ability to read the other three quarters of the Bible well without falling victim to the many traps and pitfalls that have snared so many of your unwary brethren?

I want to make an observation and propose a way forward. The observation: you’re scared. If your reason for avoiding narrative is that you don’t know how to avoid hermeneutical excesses, and your response to your lack of skill is to run away and hide in a church epistle… stop it. You can’t learn to swim by running from the water. God has not given us a spirit of fear.

Now, for a way forward. It’s simple in concept, sufficiently rich to cover the variety of problems you’ll have to face along the way, and as a bonus, it starts in your old stomping grounds — the church epistles. Even there, however, you’re going to have to face hermeneutical repentance. You’ve missed some pretty obvious stuff. The authors of the church epistles had none of your reluctance about drawing doctrine from narrative. For example, you somehow fail to notice that Paul derives his doctrine of justification by faith in Romans 4 from the narrative accounts of Abraham and David — the very thing you warn your students not to do. Nor is that circumstance unique — the authors of the epistles overwhelmingly draw their doctrine from the biblical narratives. Peter does it. Hebrews certainly does it. James does it. Know why? Because they’re following Jesus — He did it too.

The authors of the epistles may not have left you a hermeneutics manual, but they certainly did leave you with an enormous set of examples. Start with Romans 4, and work your way out from there. What other examples can you identify? How might you follow the example set forth for you?

Of course I realize that there will be differences of opinion, excesses, and all that. Sure. But if you’re not willing to get out there and make some mistakes, you’ll never get anywhere. You’ve gotta learn somehow.

Or you could keep being bad at reading three quarters of the Bible…

Originally published here.

Further reading: The Historical-Grammatical Nanny State.

Dominion comes through service … It is idolatrous to seek dominion primarily by political means, whether by domination or anarchic revolution.

From the archives of David P. Field’s blog, Thursday, August 24, 2006.

Doug Wilson’s line, “True postmodernism is theonomic postmillennialism” prompts me to dig up a little heap of quotations which I extracted, in 1993, from some of the theonomist books, mostly published in the previous ten years or so. Theonomists were accused of abandoning evangelism and the church, being obsessed with politics, and seeking to ‘impose’ the kingdom and this series of quotations left me wondering whether the theonomists’ critics were being altogether fair (!).

That was a long time ago. You may not believe it but in those days the evangelical gate-keepers, the self-appointed guardians of the tradition were quite often guilty of not-reading, mis-reading, or mis-representing the works of those they declared a danger to the church even though the theonomists’ entire appeal was to Scripture. I don’t suppose anything like that could happen these days.

These are the books from which the quotations come:

The Changing of the Guard – George Grant
Calvinism Today
Healer of the Nations – Gary North
House Divided – Greg Bahnsen & Kenneth Gentry
Theonomy: An Informed Response – ed. Gary North
Inherit the Earth – Gary North
The Institutes of Biblical Law – R.J. Rushdoony
No Other Standard – Greg Bahnsen
Paradise Restored – David Chilton
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators – David Chilton
The Reduction of Christianity – Peter Leithart & GaryDeMar
Theonomy in Christian Ethics – Greg Bahnsen
Tools of Dominion – Gary North
Westminister’s Confession – Gary North

And the quotations may as well sit on blogger as on my hard disk …

• It must be stressed that the creation of a Christian nation could be accomplished only as a result of the widespread work of the Holy Spirit, not through some bureaucratic top-down, coercively imposed order on a non-Christian majority by a Christian minority. Healer p.34

• It is the missionary … who is best equipped to begin the bottom-up process of evangelism that ultimately leads to the establishment of a covenanted confederation of Christian nations. Healer p.157

• We must seek reform first in the Church, not in the State. The focus on the State as the primary institution of life is the humanist myth of the age. It must not become the myth of Christian reconstruction. Healer p.287

• What is God’s historic means of making the world better ? The preaching of the gospel. Reduction p.xx

• One of the distinctives of Christian reconstruction is its aversion to the use of politics as the method to bring about social change …. But why all the attention to politics in reconstructionist literature … ? The answer is very simple. Politics has become the saviour of the people. Reconstructionists write about politics and civil government in order to call Christians and non-Christians back to their only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Reduction p.21f

• Christian reconstructionists are looking for the transformation of all of society, including families, churches, business establishments, the legal profession, education, economics, journalism, the media and civil government through personal redemption and adherence to the Bible as the standard for godly rule. Reduction p.23

• Dominion comes through service … It is idolatrous to seek dominion primarily by political means, whether by domination or anarchic revolution. Reduction p.25

• Evangelism is the starting point of social transformation. Reduction p.189

• The key to remedying the [present] situation is … regeneration. There is no hope for man except in regeneration … True reform begins with regeneration and then the submission of the believer to the whole law-word of God. Institutes, pp.113, 449, 627

• The chief blessing of the kingdom is forgiveness of sins. Reduction p.217

• It is through the Spirit-filled church, proclaiming the gospel, that the kingdom of Christ extends throughout the world. Reduction, p.220

• The negative reaction to social reform comes from secularized attempts to do what only the gospel can do. This reaction is legitimate but it should not deter Christians from being truly evangelical in their attempts at reform. Reduction, p.286

• The church, not the family or the state is the central institution in history. Informed, p.204

• If we really do need a graduate school in theology, let us finance one. But let us no longer fool the donors into believing that this sort of rarified academic institution is necessary or even useful for training pastors … For now, let us get on with the task at hand: the evangelization of the world. Informed, p.340f

• The authors of this book … know very well that Christian faith centers on the saving work of Jesus Christ. They profess to love the Savior with all their heart. They know that their new life in Him, their new status of being right with God, and their hope of eternal life have been granted to them by the grace of God. They have nothing of which to boast. With Paul they would say, ‘Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified unto me and I unto the world’. Having been saved from the world, their concern is to love their Lord with all their heart, soul, strength and mind. They now want to walk in those good works which God intends for them. They make a sincere effort to heed the words of Christ to ‘seek above all the kingdom of God and His righteousness’. They know that this kingdom, for which they pray regularly, will not be consummated until after the return of Jesus Christ and the final judgment, when all believers will then rejoice in a new heaven and earth wherein righteousness dwells. In the meantime they seek to perfect personal holiness in the fear of God and to make all the nations disciples of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is only in the light and context of these beliefs and practices that they see and understand their Reconstructionist position in ethics and eschatology. House, p.3f

• It must be understood the Reconstructionists believe that evangelism is the absolute pre-condition to worldwide, postmillennial, theocratic success … We insist that cultural influence and change are to be promoted by God’s people – who are saved by grace alone – at large in their callings, not by the institutional Church as such. House, p.194

• Evangelism, leading to baptism, comes first. House, p.194

• Christian Reconstructionists do not believe that man can be fundamentally changed by changing the conditions of society. Instead we believe that society will be changed when men are first changed inwardly by the Gospel and then seek to apply that change to the spheres of life in which they are involved. Tony Baxter, CT I.4 17

• First and foremost, our emphasis is on the proclamation of the saving power of God through Jesus Christ; and then the regenerate man applying the whole word of God to every sphere of life. Rushdoony, CT II.1 14

• The message of the kingdom of God rests on a concept of salvation which is supernaturally imparted, not politically imparted. Tools, p.38

• The primary need today, as always, is the need for widespread personal repentance before God. Tools, p.39

• The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth’s inhabitants will place themselves under Christ’s protection, and voluntarily use His covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God’s law, then spreads to others through revival and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under Biblical blueprints. Tools, p.55

• The key to cultural transformation is the gospel. Productive, p.234

• My slogan is ‘politics fourth’ … it is my concern after individual salvation, church membership and family membership. Westminster’s, p.158

• Politics is not central. The worship of God is central. Changing, p.xx

• What Christians should say in response to humanism’s political theology is that God’s Church, as the institution entrusted by God with His Word and His sacraments, is the central institution of history. Changing, p.xx

• Christian Reconstructionists categorically deny that politics is central to social change. The reformation of the Church is central; every other positive social change will flow from this one. Changing, p.xxi

• The goal of Christian political action then is not to usher in a theocracy but to acknowledge the theocracy that already exists …. Christian political action is not supposed to impose a messianic kingdom from the top down. Only God can lawfully control the hearts of men by imposing His rule …. Christian political action is therefore a bottom-up and inside-out process. Changing, p.11

• The orthodox Christian faith cannot be reduced to personal experiences, academic discussions, or culture-building activity – as important as all these are in varying degrees. The essence of Biblical religion is the worship of God …. True Christian reconstruction of culture is far from being simply a matter of passing Law X and electing Congressman Y. Christianity is not a political cult. It is the divinely ordained worship of the Most High God. Paradise, p.215

• I forthrightly reject any reduction of the sacred message to moralism or politics … the central thrust of the bible is recognized to be the accomplishment and application of salvation to God’s people. Theonomy, p.33f

• I don’t disagree that the issues taken up in Theonomy are of subordinate importance in the Christian life, preaching of the church, range of theological loci etc … Surely the fact that some Christians take up the question of God’s law and its relation to modern penology – and that some write on the subject – does not mean that they believe that subject is the most vital issue for all believers (or even for themselves). No Other, p.43

• We may readily grant that socio-political reconstruction has less urgency than personal spirituality or the church, but this does not bear whatsoever upon the truth or error of the theonomic standard for politics. No Other, p.51

“After the gods of the nations have been dethroned, who will take their place?”

by Chris Wooldridge

Most Reformed commentators have tended to take Matthew 24, up to verse 38, as depicting first century events such as the initial spread of the Gospel, the persecution of the apostles and the destruction of the second temple. From verse 39 and thereafter though, the tendency has been to view it as concerned with the final judgement, the “tribulation” being understood as something beginning in the first century and coming to an end at the final coming of Christ. In this post, I will be examining Matthew 24:29-31 with the aim of showing that it is also concerned with first century events.

Verse 29 begins with a quotation from Isaiah 13:10 depicting the dissolution of the heavenly bodies:

“the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

The wider context of the Isaiah passage is Yahweh’s destruction of the Babylonian empire by the hand of the Medes. Verse 10 in particular though is concerned with the heavenly dimension to this conquest, which is the overthrow of the gods of Babylon. Jesus likely has a similar emphasis in Matthew 24, the overthrowing of the gods of the nations, with the saints being enthroned in their place.

Verse 30 shows us the earthly dimension to this heavenly conquest. The tribes of the land of Israel mourning over their dead in fulfilment of Zechariah 12:10. There are also allusions to Daniel 7:13-14 in this verse, which is a reference to the ascension of Christ. The Jews in Jerusalem perceive in part the enthronement and vindication of Christ in the unfolding events of judgement. The verse as a whole could be read as follows:

“Then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven,
and then all the tribes of the land shall mourn,
and they shall perceive the son of man’s coming
on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Verse 31 answers the problem of verse 29. After the gods of the nations have been dethroned, who will take their place? The answer is of course, the elect, the righteous in Christ who have died. They are gathered together by the angels into heaven to form a new heavenly council, to reign with Christ over the nations. All of which was fulfilled in the first century.

Bill Smith spells out the reasons behind the exhortation for struggling Christians to find comfort and strength in their paedobaptism. And I respond.

Firstly, why should I respond? It is not for the sake of dyed-in-the-wool paedobaptists. I have come to the conclusion that they do not really care what the Scriptures actually say. They are willing to steamroll and redefine just about everything to accommodate this doctrine. Like same sex marriage, this is a rite that alters the very foundations of the order established by God. I respond partly for the sake of those who are confused or sitting on the fence or at least open minded. But mostly I respond because I can’t bear to see the “beautiful music” of my favourite book played so disturbingly off-key, even if this is done with the best of intentions.

Bill writes:

If you had to talk to another Christian about some sin in his life and the fact that he is presuming upon God’s grace, where would you begin the discussion? Go ahead, think about it. I’ll give you a minute…

If I were a pastor, I’d begin by reminding the person that sin has consequences for yourself and for those around you, and that a lack of conviction for sin might indicate that the person is not actually a child of God, since God disciplines His children. John tells us that sinning habitually without remorse is impossible for those who have heard and received the “seed of the Gospel.” That should be the end of the story but Bill has a doctrine to prop up.

Some might begin by questioning the salvation of the person. The question might be, “Has there ever been a time in your life when you prayed the sinner’s prayer and asked Jesus into your heart?” Others might not go that far, but may appeal to the person on the basis that he knows this isn’t the right thing to do. In our Protestant, evangelical world (which is the world in which I live) we will, normally, appeal to almost anything except what the apostle Paul appeals to in Romans 6: baptism.

Some might mention the sinner’s prayer, but that is a bit of a straw man. Bill’s intention is to point out that there is nothing we can contribute to our salvation. I agree. But by misrepresenting the biblical command to “repent and believe” he has removed the actual Gospel of Christ from the picture entirely. That is why this sort of talk makes me so angry. It also amazes me that those who are so focussed on the benefits of liturgy are willing to discard a prayer of faith and repentance because it has been abused as a magic mantra.

But it gets worse. Paul does not appeal to baptism per se. Paul appeals to Christ. Bill has rejected one apparent “error” (a magic prayer) for a more heinous one, a magic baptism. Paul is not appealing to infants. He is appealing to those who had voluntarily submitted to baptism and exhorting them to continue in that voluntary submission, a mortification of sin. There is not an infant in sight. To pervert baptism into an involuntary rite is to change its meaning entirely. It is not about obligation, since all are now obliged to repent and believe. It is about voluntary obedience. The only way this could be overlooked in Romans 6 is if the reader were looking for evidence to support a predetermined agenda.

Pointing to an objective baptism which the baptizand had no choice in and cannot even remember is actually worse than pointing to a prayer which may or may not have been prayed in faith. Paul is not pointing to a rite. He is pointing to Christ, who presented His own body as an instrument of righteousness voluntarily, who was crucified voluntarily, and who died voluntarily. He is calling the saints to identify with Jesus in these acts voluntarily.

For Baptists, if the person isn’t living right, that might mean that he “didn’t get his baptism on the right side of his conversion.” Consequently, his baptism didn’t mean anything. To appeal to his baptism would be useless because it was just an empty, external rite. For the Reformed, well, we’re too busy all the time telling you what baptism doesn’t mean. “Baptism doesn’t mean you’re saved.” “Baptism certainly doesn’t mean this, and baptism most certainly doesn’t mean that.” By the time some of our brothers are finished telling us what baptism doesn’t mean, we start wondering why God is wasting our time with it!

Certainly, if it turns out that someone was never a believer, then their baptism was not an act of faithful obedience to God. It may have been a deception, or a misunderstanding, or a desire to please family or friends. However, as a rite it did mean something, and that something is what baptism actually means: public submission to the Body of Christ, and a commission to preach the Gospel under the accountability which that public profession brought about. One thing that many Presbyterians do get right is the idea that baptism is a component in a Covenant oath or vow. The problem is that they assume this vow can be taken by proxy, since they conflate Abrahamic circumcision of flesh (obligation) with the Mosaic oath which called for circumcision of heart (obedience). These two circumcisions, external and internal, were separate things even under the Old Covenant, which is why not “all Israel” were Israel. Some were Jacobs. Some were Esaus. Did that make circumcision ineffective? No, because circumcision was obligation, not salvation. Thus paedobaptists like Bill make exactly the same error that the Jews of the first century did, since they “looked to their circumcision.” All people everywhere are now obligated to Christ. But baptism is for those who hear and respond to Jesus’ “If…”

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (Mark 8:34-35)

It seems that Jesus is very happy with a “subjective” response to His “objective” Gospel. Bill continues:

We Protestants are a little afraid of water. We’re afraid that if we speak like Paul in Romans 6 that we will be misunderstood. His language is too strong and absolute. “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him in the baptism into the death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, even so we also might walk in newness of life.” No qualifications. No, “If you got your baptism on the right side of your conversion” talk. No, “Well, you know baptism can’t mean that.” Baptism is participation in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Period. Full stop. No way to get out of it. Baptism changes you.

According to Bill, who has misinterpreted Romans 6, baptism can bury somebody with Christ even if they have no clue what is going on. Besides the fact that Bill does not seem to understand the meaning of the word “participation,” if that is the case, what is the point of the Gospel? It becomes redundant. That is precisely what happened in many European countries where almost everyone was “baptised” but almost nobody was a believer. Because the Gospel is a call to everyone on the planet, paedobaptism is as redundant as circumcision or uncircumcision. Paul calls such rites and hereditary “identities” skubalon, something to be discarded as used up, useless and unclean. God is not wasting our time with paedobaptism. Paedobaptists are.

Some have tried to wriggle out of this language by saying that Paul is referring to some invisible inner work of the Spirit on the hearts of individuals. Paul is only speaking to those who have really been baptized; wink, wink, nod, nod. There are many problems with that. Paul has never met these people. He is writing based on what he actually knows about them and what they know about one another: they have all been baptized … with water. They don’t know everything that is going on in the hearts of one another. But he and they both know that they have all been baptized … with water. His appeal to them is to live in accordance with what has happened in this baptism.

This is a good point, but our inability to immediately discern the hearts of people is not a reason to reject that calling. The very fact that the Christians in Rome had submitted to baptism is a fair indication that at least many of them had indeed heard and believed the Gospel. He is not saying, “Well, you were baptised, so there is no escape now.” He is calling them to return to the faith which they demonstrated at the beginning, the faith which resulted in their baptisms. I would have thought this was obvious. It is faith in Christ that was central to Paul, not baptism. Faith is the “oath” (voluntary submission to heaven) and baptism is the resulting “sanctions” (blessings and dominion upon the earth). Paedobaptism puts these around the other way. It is the soteriological equivalent of the Bootstrap Paradox. Israel fell into the same error. “We are Jews, therefore God is pleased with us.” Under the Old Covenant, sacrifices were not magic, and the Ark of the Covenant was not a lucky charm. Without a conscious faith in God, all of these things were worthless. The sacrifices of God are voluntary confession, a broken spirit, and the “cutting off” of the flesh in a contrite heart (Psalm 51:15-17). Sons of men can become sons of God, but as with the Jews, that is not automatically so.

Your baptism has meaning. It doesn’t matter what you were feeling or not feeling at the time. It doesn’t matter if you were an infant, a teenager, or an adult. Your baptism means that you have become a part of Christ’s people. And it means that because God gives it that meaning. You don’t give baptism meaning. Baptism is not yours to give meaning. You receive it from God. It is his work, not your work or even the work of the person who baptized you.

This is good advice, especially for young Christians. Feelings are simply reactions to stimuli. But exhorting a Christian to trust in an “identity” which is basically hereditary and tribal (despite the ridiculous claims to contrary, since the only reason Pastor Bill, I assume, was baptised was because of whose family he was born into) is just another form of idolatry. It shifts the focus from subjective feelings to an object rather than to the Saviour. It depersonalises Jesus. Rediscovering the Old Testament is invaluable for Christians, but failing to comprehend that the “Covenant” is no longer written on tablets of stone is a serious error. This is why for many who were “bap-cised” as infants, their assumed obligation to Christ via their family is a terrible burden which they come to resent. They have no desire for Jesus Christ, and no one should be baptised without desire. Baptism is a demarcation of Spirit, not flesh, and paedobaptists are at constant war with each other because Spirit and flesh are at constant war with each other (Galatians 5:17). Circumcision of flesh and of heart cannot be conflated. Once again, it amazes me that this is still an issue. The solution is so obvious if we are willing to read the Scriptures objectively.

Because of this you can’t blow off your baptism by making it dependent on the meaning you give it. God re-defined your life in your baptism. You have obligations. The first, foremost, and fundamental obligation is that you respond to the gift of God with allegiance to Christ Jesus; that is, biblical faith. He is your Lord. Do what he says. If you don’t, the consequences are bad and everlasting. We should handle the gift of baptism with great caution. Don’t presume upon God’s grace.

This is rubbish. Baptism is not a revived circumcision. Jesus died to destroy the bifurcation of humanity. All people are now under an identical obligation to Christ, and all people are offered the gift. The entire world was “redefined.” Turning baptism into a “Covenant boundary” makes the New Covenant just as parochial as the Abrahamic Covenant was. Because Jesus “grew up,” so did Covenant history, and we are to put childish things – the stoicheia – behind.

This means that “You have obligations” is simply legalism for those who are not actually believers. This does not mean that exhortations and church discipline are without purpose. They are the means of discerning the hearts of men. Like the Gospel, those who not only hear but also do, that is, respond with repentance and faithful obedience, are the children of God.

But there is a flip-side to this. God defining you by baptism is also a great comfort. Baptism is God’s word to you in water. You belong to him. It is not dependent upon how you felt at the time or if you did this or that “just right.” Your heart will constantly be deceiving you, calling into question the promises of God in your relationship with him. Your guilt over confessed sin will keep you guessing if you really have a relationship with God. Baptism tells you, “You belong to God in Christ. Now trust him and continue to fight to overcome sin.” That is basically the message of Romans 6. That is God’s word to you.

Baptism is indeed a word to the believer in water, but it is a word which comes after the Word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not itself the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By making baptism the initial “word,” baptism becomes a rival Gospel. There is no problem with calling a Christian back to their first love, but paedobaptism is not a response to the Word. Faith comes by hearing, and that simple phrase destroys paedobaptism and the redefinition of “faith” by many who attempt to defend it.

Will we be misunderstood if we take the trek of the apostle Paul and appeal to someone’s baptism for caution and comfort? No doubt. But should we neglect the Scriptural appeal to baptism and replace it with our own conjured up traditions of men out of fear? By no means!

Paul never went on that trek. It is a dead end in the wilderness. It is the fate of those who appeal to circumcision and the Law rather than to God. The greatest irony here is that Bill fails to realise that his own baptism and his appeal to it is nothing more than conjuring and tradition.

Look to your baptism, and hear God’s word to you.

Yes, look to your baptism, and remember why you chose to be baptized. It was your trust in the finished work of Christ after you heard the Gospel, and willingly followed Him into the grave. Take up that cross daily, and rise again in power from that grave daily. That is what pleases God. And if you have not been baptised biblically, be baptised. That is the first step a believer takes after looking to Christ. Paedobaptism is an unwitting rebellion against the New Covenant order.

“The greatest of legendary swords are those which no longer need to be drawn.”

Glorification

by Jacob Gucker

“The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple,
even the messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in;
behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts.

But who may abide the day of His coming,
and who shall stand when He appeareth?
For He is like a refiner’s fire.

And He shall purify the sons of Levi,
that they may offer unto the Lord
an offering in righteousness.”

— Handel’s Messiah quoting Malachi 3:1-3

In part 1 of this article we saw that Levi, the third son of Jacob and the priestly tribe in Israel, is a preacher-swordsman and guardian of Yahweh’s covenant community. We saw that God took Levi from being a man who would use his mouth and his sword to assemble men for slaughter and redeemed him to become a tribe who would use his mouth and his sword to assemble men for true worship and covenant life. In Genesis 34 Levi and Simeon used the sign of circumcision to hobble a whole city and then used their swords to destroy it. Their father prophesied that they would be scattered in Israel, and they were, but the actual scattering would be a blessing. In a moment of faithfulness at Sinai the Levites took up their swords to guard the covenant and were by that action ordained to be the priestly guardians of God’s covenant by serving in the tabernacle.

We also saw that there are quite a few places in scripture where Levi is associated with speech and the sword. Levi uses the sword for the ritual act of circumcision and slaughtering animals for sacrifice, and he uses speech to instruct Israel in Torah and to guard the truth. In this second part I will show how Levi, the preacher-swordsman, is glorified in the New Covenant to wield the Sword of the Spirit.

The End of the Sword

The symbolic relationship between speech and the sword runs throughout scripture and so Paul’s designation of God’s word as “the Sword of the Spirit” in Ephesians 6:17 is not a unique metaphor peculiar to the Apostle. It is as old as the Pentateuch, though it is most abundant in the writings and prophets, and is engrained in Paul’s biblical imagination. Consider these examples of Old Testament poetry and prophecy:

“His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.” Psalm 55:21

“…who whet their tongues like swords, who aim bitter words like arrows…” Psalm 64:3

“There are those whose teeth are swords, whose fangs are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, the needy from among mankind.” Proverbs 30:14

“My soul is in the midst of lions; I lie down amid fiery beasts— the children of man, whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords.” Psalm 57:4

“Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him.” Jeremiah 9:8

“He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away.” Isaiah 49:2

Notice that all manner of sharp weapons are mentioned. Swords, knives, spears, and arrows are included and parallel the many different ways in which a person can impact others with the spoken word or a written decree. Most of these examples are negative, not referring to preachers but to those who cut others to pieces with their malicious words. However, the last example here is from one of the famous “servant songs” of Isaiah and prophesies of Christ who would be the embodiment of Israel, Yahweh’s servant nation.

Readers of the Psalms and Prophets take this recurring metaphor as a fitting literary device because it is poetic, but “the sword” is a concept in the mind of God which precedes the human use of sharp weapons. God placed a flaming sword at the eastern gate of the garden sanctuary of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life before any human had even sharpened a stick to wield as a weapon, and later the Levites guarded the tabernacle with man-made swords as representatives of the angels which guard the throne of God in the heavens. Furthermore, the Bible refers to angelic beings who wield swords as they carry out God’s work on earth. Thus, it seems that the sword is an enduring symbol of word and effects the word of priests and kings and prophets in the physical world.

The sword is God-made, but is it eternal? Shouldn’t we be turning our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks at some point as Isaiah, Joel, and Micah say? Shouldn’t we take up the mighty pen and engage in diplomacy rather than war? What is the end, or telos of the sword? The answer lies in the Bible’s spiraling meta-structure. That sounds like it might be confusing, but it simply means that the Bible is structured so that the end of it is a return to the beginning while also being a progression into new creation. Like a spiral, the Bible cycles through the same story again and again but with important differences and significant developments. For instance, the Bible begins in a garden paradise and ends with a paradisiacal city. It begins with the two guarded trees of life and knowledge and ends with many trees lining the river that flows from the city with fruit and leaves that are for the healing of the nations (Ezekiel 47:12). It begins with the precious gold and onyx of Havilah downstream from the garden, and ends with a garden city built with gold and precious stones. It begins with man and woman naked in the garden and ends with Christ and church clothed in glory and splendor.

The development of the garden into an eternal city is not linear. The garden does not get better and better until it becomes the city. No, the repeating pattern of exile and return in the scriptures means that the garden is walled off and its custodians banished because of sin, but it comes back as a tent in the wilderness. The two trees are lost, but they come back later in the design of the temple furniture and decorations. Israel’s tree is cut back to the stump, but God promises to make it flourish once more. The precious gold of Havilah and Ophir is mined and covers the Ark and then fills Solomon’s temple. But then the Gentiles burn the temple and the gold melts. The man becomes a polygamist with seven bald women grabbing hold of his cloak, all of them promiscuous. But then he goes back to the wife of his youth, forsaking all others, and purchases her in the slave market. She will turn again and take five husbands plus one who is not her husband before all is finished, but some bright day she will be attached to her husband and He will lead her to the water of life. Like night and day, sleeping and waking, death and resurrection, history goes forward not in a line or round in a circle, but both. Our lives are the same as we have times of joy and sorrow, plenty and want, sickness and health. The promise of resurrection and the gift of the Spirit is the promise that we are going forward, not merely round and round.

Adam had no physical weapon to fight the serpent in the garden. His sword was the word of God. He failed to wield it against the serpent and so God had to replace him with the flaming sword and cherubim. In the covenant with Noah the sword became the tool of the civil government to punish evil. Noah was authorized to pass judgement on murderers and man-slaying beasts. In the Mosaic Covenant the Levites were to guard the garden-tent with their swords. By God’s grace they were also teachers of the word. Their privilege was a shadow of better things to come. But what makes the word in the end better than the word in the beginning? Man in the garden had the word and the breath of life with which to speak it, but his breath and his life were merely his own spirit, a gift of God, yes, but not the greatest gift. Furthermore, the word of the gospel was not complete then and now is. In Christ we have the gift of the Holy Spirit and the fully-forged sword of the Spirit. Thus, the telos or end of “the sword” is the whole council of God in the mouth of man, extended by the Holy Spirit.

We see what has happened and will continue to happen to the sword, but we still need to find out what happened to Levi in the New Testament. In Malachi chapter 3 there is a prophecy that the Lord will suddenly come to His temple and will purify the sons of Levi like a refiner’s fire and fuller’s soap. If we take this to be the coming of Jesus Christ, then in what sense are the sons of Levi refined? Are we still waiting?

Levi in the New Exodus

As we learned in part one this article, the book of Exodus begins with a faithful Levite couple. According to the Gospel of Luke, the first chronological event event of the New Exodus in Jesus is the appearance of an angel to a righteous Levite named Zechariah, telling him that his barren and aged wife would give birth to a son. He appeared to him while he was on duty in the temple, burning incense at the hour of prayer. Zechariah did not believe and Gabriel, who stood in the presence of God and was sent to speak to Zechariah, took away the Levite’s ability to speak until the good news had come to pass. Once again, we see a Levite with a speech problem. Zechariah is thus unable to speak the customary benediction and leaves Israel waiting. The priest remains mute and deaf until after the baby is born. And yet, his tongue is not loosed on the day of birth, but rather on the eighth day after he is born. The eighth day is the day of his circumcision, the day of his ritual rebirth into the nation of priests. It does not say who wielded the knife, but it might have been Zechariah himself if not a local Levite. Either way, Zechariah’s speech returns to him on the day of circumcision, showing that priestly speech and priestly cutting go hand in hand.

When John, the forerunner of Christ, went out to preach and to baptize, it was priests and Levites who came out to him, suspicious of what he was doing. This is because he was baptizing and the ancient purpose of baptism in Israel was to ordain priests. What was this son of Zechariah, this son of Levi, doing out in the desert baptizing people at the Jordan river? The Jews sent priests and Levites to find out because it was an overt and highly symbolic action. By baptizing people in the Jordan river he was essentially giving them a new Exodus and reentry into the holy land. They were getting a new entrance into the promises of Abraham.

The book of Hebrews deals with the fact that Jesus is the great high priest, despite the fact that he is not from the tribe of Levi. This would be a problem if the writer of Hebrews did not know that Jesus was in another priestly order altogether. Jesus is in the order of Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem to whom Abraham gave tithes after the battle of the kings. Messianic kings like David, Solomon, and Jesus are in this priestly line. Hebrews also speaks of the uselessness of the Levitical sacrifices and temple service in the new age, for Christ is the new temple. He is the everlasting high priest and His sacrifice is the final sacrifice for atonement of sins. On the other hand, this does not mean that the Levitical priesthood is abolished altogether. No, if God can raise up sons for Abraham from the stones, He can certainly raise up sons for Levi! If He did not accomplish this, He would not be faithful to His promise to purify the sons of Levi.

Since baptism is a sign of ordination into priesthood, all those who are baptized into Christ are sons of Levi. They take up the Sword of the Spirit to circumcise hearts for God by the word of God. They take up the Sword of the Spirit to prepare people to offer themselves as living sacrifices as their new service of worship (Romans 12:1). Ours is a two-edged sword, “piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 12:4). It is also the sword by which we guard the Lord’s table. Just as the flaming angelic sword guarded the tree of life and the Levites guarded the bread of the presence with their swords, the bread and wine of the Lord’s table is ours to guard from those who are not baptized into the new temple of God. and is the standard by which we solemnly cut people off from the Lord’s table who are living in open rebellion to their baptismal testimony.

The Armor of God

Many of us have learned about putting on “the armor of God” in Sunday School. The glossy pages of the Sunday School book told us that Paul is referring to the armor and weapons of a Roman soldier. Usually there is a labeled graphic of the soldier, gladius in one hand and a scutum shield in the other, complete with a helmet that has a red broom on top. And let us not forget the fact that Paul mentions a breastplate, but says nothing about a back plate, so let’s not retreat! Forward to victory as a conquering phalanx; it’s the Christian way!

There is good reason to believe that Paul is not thinking of a Roman soldier. He was not necessarily searching for a metaphor at all because the Bible and the Apocrypha already contained such devices. For instance, Isaiah 59:17 says, “He put on righteousness as a breastplate and a helmet of salvation on his head….” Paul’s imagination was more Hebraic than Roman; it is more likely that he is describing the armor and weapons of a decked out temple guardian. If we look for comparisons in the high priest alone, as some have, we will fail to find the whole picture. He had a nice breastplate and belt and turban, but not a shield or sword. However, if we look to the Levitical guardians in 2 Chronicles 26, we will find a good reference for a more Hebraic picture. We can also see a wonderful picture of what Christian Levites are all about.

In that passage the mother of wicked King Ahaziah killed off all her son’s children. The entire Davidic line came down to a single surviving infant whose nurse hid him away while his grandmother killed the rest of his brothers. The high priest’s wife hid Joash in the House of the Lord where he grew up as a child of the temple precincts. In the child’s seventh year Jehoiada the high priest called upon all of the priests and Levites who were on guard in the temple to take up sword, spear, and shield and to surround the boy King and guard him within the house of God as he was given the Kingdom. The boy grew up in the temple precincts; he was practically a Levite himself, but he was the true heir to the throne.

The Kings of Israel have often flirted with priesthood. David ate the bread of the presence and wore the linen ephod and danced before the Ark. Solomon worshipped before the Ark in the tabernacle of David. Uzziah went too far, burning incense at the altar of incense, a skin disease breaking out upon his brow which kept him out of God’s house until the day of his death. Each of these were kings of Salem, now Jerusalem, like Melchizedek. Their closeness to priesthood anticipates Jesus. Joash, surrounded by armed and armored Levites, is a picture of Christ, the ultimate Priest-King, standing in the temple with all His holy warriors around Him. Sadly, Joash did not remain faithful after Jehoiada died. He grew up in the temple and presumably got his food from the Levitical portions, but he was ultimately unfaithful to God, even murdering Zechariah, Jehoiada’s son, in the house of Yahweh. Many Christians grow up, as it were, in the temple precincts, but do not endure to the end, proving that they never had saving faith.

From Pentecost to Pentecost

Many Christians think that Pentecost is a single event in the book of Acts. Actually, it is a holy day that is still celebrated by a great number of Christians. It refers to the 50th day after Passover when the children of Israel entered covenant with God. Like the Levites, the first disciples of Jesus were ordained for priestly service at Pentecost. The first Pentecost of the old epoch included the giving of the law and the tabernacle and the Levites rising up with their swords to defend the covenant, in which 3000 of their brothers fell. The first Pentecost of the new epoch included the gift of the Holy Spirit, the temple of the body of Christ, and the apostles rising up to pierce their brothers with the Sword of the Spirit. After the Spirit falls upon the disciples in tongues of fire and they speak in all of the various languages that are represented among the throng who came up for Pentecost, Peter stands up to preach and reveal the meaning of it all by saying:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” Acts 2:22-24.

“Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” Acts 2:33.

Peter, an ordained Priest who has been baptized in water and baptized in the Holy Spirit, preaches to the men of Israel and the effect is circumcision of the heart:

“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:37-38.

The verb translated here as “cut” is a word used nowhere else in the Bible or other Greek literature. It is formed by the preposition kata and the word nusso. Nusso is often used of grievous wounds and is only used in Matthew and John to describe the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear. The preposition seems to indicate a deep or thorough stabbing or piercing. The usage here is metaphorical because of the context. Peter’s words, empowered by the Spirit, are piercing the hearts of his hearers. The employment of this particular word with the ultimate effect that three thousand people are added to the church on the same calendar day on which the Levites took up their swords to kill three thousand of their covenant breaking brethren, heralds the fact that God has fulfilled His promise to refine and purify the sons of Levi with the fire of the Holy Spirit. The spiral of biblical history has come round again to Levi and his sword, but now his speech and his sword are one in the same. The children of Israel had once again succumbed to idolatry, crucifying Jesus at the hands of sinful men and paying homage to Caesar. Peter tells his audience that the only way forward is baptism. Levi has delivered the death blow and they must be baptized in order to die with Jesus and be raised again and filled with the Holy Spirit. Being baptized, they are able to go into the new temple and eat of the holy food. They themselves are empowered by the Spirit to wield the word of God to defend this sanctuary of life. They are true Levites, for their lips guard knowledge and truth is in their mouth.

Levi purified is like the third son of Jacob and Leah; he takes up his sword to defend the covenant community, but instead of creating a false community, he uses his sword of the Spirit to attach people to God and build the church. Leah’s hope was that the child would help her to be attached to her husband, but his destiny was even greater than all her hopes, for now he attaches the bride of Christ to the Bridegroom and the two become one in order to unite heaven and earth. The artfulness of God in turning Levi’s sin around and using him to save the bride and the bride the world is worthy of awe, thanksgiving, and praise. However, we are not quite at the end of it all. Levi’s scattering in Israel was a consequence redeemed and it is an echo of what happened at the tower of Babel. In this story, all things are redeemed and glorified, even the tower of Babel.

Garden, Tower, Tower, Garden

When the day of Pentecost came the believers and devout Jews and God fearing people from every nation were together in one place. Yahweh had drawn the powers of Sin together to condemn it in the flesh of Jesus on the cross, but He had also drawn together people of different tongues to hear of this mighty work in their own language. In this moment God reversed the scattering of Babel, for He was bringing His people together to begin work on a new city and a new tower, a tower that would connect heaven and earth. The church is that tower and those who build it have a liturgy that God loves, for they do not sing to one another of their own greatness, but of the glory of God. Jesus Christ is the building that bridges heaven and earth. Like those who built the tower of Babel, we rejoice as we work. The tower of Babel was made with the dust of earth that had been mixed with water and burned and hardened by fire. Human beings are but dust, but by adding the water of baptism and the fire of the Spirit, God fashions them into bricks for building His tower, the church. Thus, God has turned the song of Babel into a song that we can sing:

“Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly!”

Each Christian is a baked brick in God’s tower and a son of Levi, refined by fire.The church is the city that comes down out of heaven in the book of Revelation and in it is the tree of life, available to all without measure. The final New Creation city is the garden glorified, and no unclean thing may enter it.

Conclusion

Legendary swordsmen are greater in legend than in life, and the greatest of legendary swords are those which no longer need to be drawn. On earth a sheathed ceremonial sword is a sign of prosperity and peace and the rule of a good king. Swords are forged to bring about the rule of Kings and are sheathed in times of peace and that is the best we can do in the governments of man. But God sheathed His sword after the death and resurrection of Christ by reforging it as Word, and this is a return to the garden of Eden. Those who are in Christ are all children of Levi and legendary swordsmen. With the full armor of God we can block and parry the fiery shafts of the evil dragon, the serpent of old and fulfill our vocation as priests to God. We who were in Christ at His death are in Christ in His victory. Like the Levites who gathered to Moses at Sinai and the priestly guardians who gathered around Joash, we are gathered around Christ as He conquers the nations by His word.

“And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron…” Revelation 19:14-15

Jacob Gucker is a librarian at BMA Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, Texas. He lives with his wife and baby daughter at Preacher’s End Farm where she raises vegetables and pastures chickens and he looks up from his books to help out.

“Martyrdom is more than a sign of impending doom. Martyrs are agents of apocalypse.”

Christian Formation in Our Apocalyptic Age

by Peter J. Leithart

Every summer brings another string of apocalyptic blockbusters to the movie theaters. Godzilla rises from the sea. A meteor smashes into the earth. Volcanoes threaten towns; viruses spread like wildfire; aliens invade. Robots take over, evolving into ex machinas. Terrorists storm the White House. Superheroes do their superheroics against the backdrop of inky Gotham cityscapes. Zombies occupy Pemberly, of all places, so it’s a good thing Elizabeth Bennet is a ninja. It’s as if every Hollywood studio has hired Left Behind creators Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins as script consultants.

If we can trust the signals coming from pop culture, we live in a world charged with what one film critic, following Kierkegaard, calls “apocalyptic dread.”

Continue reading at Touchstone Magazine.