The abandonment of the Son by the Father is made palpable not in the crucifixion of His body, since He willingly laid down His life, but in the darkness which covered the Land for three hours. But perhaps this darkness was a sign of the Father’s nearness rather than His distance.

Matthew, Mark and Luke document the darkness which covered the Land during the last three hours of Jesus’ life, and so do three extra biblical historians, Thallus, Phlegon and Africanus. But what was its purpose? It is wise to look for typological precedents for events in the Gospels, since Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Concerning darkness we have the primeval world before the creation of light (Genesis 1:2), and the darkness which covered Egypt as the ninth plague (Exodus 10:21-23).

The details of this plague are interesting, since this was “a darkness to be felt” and “nor did anyone rise from his place for three days.” Only the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt was given light. Thus, the three hours of darkness at noonday were a sign of the coming three days in which Christ would be covered by the darkness of the tomb. But there is another instance of darkness and light as a judgment in Exodus, and that occurred at the Red Sea crossing (Exodus 13:19-20). The pillar of cloud gave light to the Israelites but the Egyptians were left in the dark. Thus the two were kept separate throughout the night.

My assertion here is that the darkness in each case was a visit from the glory cloud, the “mobile tabernacle” which served as God’s chariot until the Day of Pentecost. It was presumably this cloud which is described in Genesis 3:8, which would be better translated as “And they heard the sound/voice of the Lord God coming to the garden in the breath/spirit of the day and they hid themselves…” It is likely that this visitation was similar to the cloud which descended upon Sinai and upon the mount of transfiguration. It is also likely the same cloud which, when opened, provided a glimpse into heaven at the baptism of Jesus (with its allusion to Genesis 1, the Spirit hovering over the deep), at His ascension, and again at the martyrdom of Stephen. The Lord always comes “with” or “in” clouds, and when He does, He comes to judge.

Of course, judgment does not necessarily mean punishment. The Lord came down to judge Babel, Egypt and Sodom, and it each case the result was cursing. In the case of Ezekiel, it seems the prophet was actually taken up in or by the chariot in Spirit that he might witness the sins of Jerusalem, God and a “son of man” serving as two legal witnesses, explaining the phrase “Come, let us go down…” in Genesis 11:7, when God brought confusion. The pillar of cloud also brought confusion upon Pharaoh’s armies, and it was likely present when the armies of Midian were confused under the watch of Gideon. But when the cloud came upon the Tabernacle and Temple, upon the Son, and upon His saints on the Day of Pentecost, as a mighty, rushing wind, the Lord was happy to bless. The arrival of the chariot of God, unlike the chariot of Pharaoh, is a chariot which brings not only vengeance but also redemption. It is the chariot of the almighty ga’al, the one who bears a two-edged sword to slay the wicked and cut the bonds of the righteous.

So, is it beyond possibility that the chariot of God was the cause of the three hours of darkness, recorded across the oikoumene, while Christ was on the cross? After all, the final chapters of Ezekiel present this Jew-Gentile social construct as a temple, with the Land of Israel as its holy altar. The Lord was coming to His temple to inspect it for “leprosy.” According to the Law, the leprosy had to be cut out, but if it returned, the house would be destroyed. Jesus was crucified “outside the camp,” like a leper (see Leviticus 14, and The Leprous House). He was the one being “cut out” that the house might be spared. But as Jesus predicted, the cleaned house would be filled with even worse demons (see Seven Spirits More Wicked), and its response to being cleansed would be a return to corruption in an even greater way. The Veil of the Temple was torn, but when the Lord later returned “in the clouds” the Temple was torn down. Not one stone was left upon another.

And he shall break down the house, its stones and timber and all the plaster of the house, and he shall carry them out of the city to an unclean place (Leviticus 14:45)

This means that the entire Land was under judgment, and Jesus was at the center of the court. He had been condemned by the High Priesthood (Garden), by Herod (Land) and by Pilate (World), the entirety of the oikoumene “Tabernacle.” Now He was being judged by heaven, and for the will of heaven be done on earth required the “bowing of the heavens,” that is, a visit from the heavenly court via the glory cloud, a symbolic reunion of the waters above and below in a prefiguring of final judgment (see “Bowing the Heavens” in my book Inquiétude for more discussion.) God was visiting the Garden, and Adam was exposed in His court. The events that transpired recapitulate those of Psalm 18 – including the earthquake –with one major difference: the Father did not hear, and did not deliver, the Man who cried out to Him.

The cords of death encompassed me;
the torrents of destruction assailed me;
the cords of Sheol entangled me;
the snares of death confronted me.

In my distress I called upon the Lord;
to my God I cried for help.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry to him reached his ears.

Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations also of the mountains trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.

Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.

He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.

He rode on a cherub and flew;
he came swiftly on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him,
thick clouds dark with water.

What does this mean for the significance of the three hours of darkness? That the Christ who “became sin for us” was trodden underfoot like an enemy, or a serpent, the blood upon the kapporet, the footstool of God (see Peter Leithart, The Footstool of His Feet.) To conquer sin, He became sin. To make His enemies His footstool (Psalm 110:1; Luke 20:43; Hebrews 10:13), He would first be trampled underfoot, and it would please the Lord to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10). The holy presence which overshadowed Mary at Jesus’ conception (Luke 1:35) now overshadowed the entire nation at His death.

This abandonment of the Son by the Father was not “spatial” but legal. The Father presided over the Son in the seat of Moses, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. This courtroom “betrayal,” a perjury in the sense that He changed His previous testimonies concerning the blamelessness and authority of the Son, was as close-to-home as the kiss of Judas. In this final act, the Father crossed the floor and stood with Judas, with Ananias, with those who beat, spat upon and ridiculed Jesus, with Pilate, with the crowd, and with the thief who cursed Him on the cross.

The word “sacrifice” connotes the idea of “near bringing” (see James B. Jordan, Leviticus 1:2). It was this reversal of judgment, through substitutionary atonement, that the angels “standing at the four corners of the Land,” those who stood prepared to vindicate the Son by immediately destroying the city and the Land (as predicted in Daniel 9:25-26), were told: “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God” (Revelation 7:1-3).

At the Day of Pentecost, the brightness of the cloud was visited upon those who believed, and the darkness of strong delusion upon those who refused to believe. In the Gospel, this dividing “sword” was extended right across the empire. This “visitation” by the Spirit, whose indwelling turned every believer into a chariot (epitomised and signified in the miraculous travel of Philip in Acts 8:38-39), explains the inspiration and perseverance of the Jew-Gentile saints and the strong delusion which confused and confounded their Jew-Gentile enemies, who turned on each other, eventuating in their destruction at the coming of Christ with all His martyred sons, including Abel (Matthew 23:35), on white horses as a cloud of “witnesses” (martyrs) against the first century “Babylon.” These saints were God’s chariot.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2)

“Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”

“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 2:38)

James Jordan has observed that Abraham’s “calling on the name of the Lord” was in fact evangelical proclamation of his faith. Abraham’s witness to the Canaanites was something for which they would be held accountable when Israel returned to claim the land. Chris Wooldridge sees this “vocal allegiance” as the key to understanding the meaning of the washing away of sins in the New Testament. Seen in the context of the last days of the Old Covenant, this was not baptismal regeneration but a public identification by the Jewish worshiper with the final sacrificial lamb (Leviticus 1:1-9).

Chris writes:

What does the book of Acts mean when it speaks of Baptism as the means by which sins are “forgiven” (Acts 2:38) or “washed away” (Acts 22:16). What does this mean and how do we reconcile it with the fact that we are justified by faith alone? When confronted with passages like this, there is often a tendency amongst evangelicals to overlook or avoid the obvious connections being drawn. But this is not the answer. In order to understand a passage like this, we need to consider its Covenant context.

Acts 2 records a sermon given by the Apostle Peter to a Jewish audience who were gathered together for the feast of Pentecost. The sermon begins by warning of a coming judgement. Peter, quoting from the book of Joel, proclaims:

And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. (Acts 2:19-20).

The first century Jewish audience, steeped in the Old Testament, would easily have understood the language of cosmic upheaval to be referring to a national judgment (e.g. Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7), with the sun and moon representing the rulers of nations.

But this was not to be a judgment of any old nation. No, this judgement was a curse meted out against Israel for her rebellion against God. Peter made it clear that Jesus was a righteous prophet like no other, “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” (2:22). And how did Israel respond? By handing Jesus over to be crucified (Acts 2:23, 36). And now, this very same Jesus had been raised from the dead and set up as God’s judge and right-hand man.

No wonder the men were “cut to the heart” (2:27). They knew what happened when Israel disobeyed God and killed His righteous prophets. As Deuteronomy 28 made clear, when the people disobeyed God, the covenant curses were to be poured out upon them: famine, foreign invasion, exile and death.

It is in this context that we discover the reference to the “forgiveness of sins.” The “sins” in question are specifically transgressions against the Law of Moses and the “forgiveness” in question entailed a release from the consequences of those transgressions. For the Jew, Baptism was a public identification with Christ which washed away sin in a way no Levitical washing or atonement could. It declared openly a submission to a higher priest than the one in the Temple and an allegiance to a higher king than the one in Jerusalem. This is why it was performed “in the name of Jesus Christ.”¹Other New Testament passages, such as Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27, also speak of Baptism as a public identification with Christ.

For any Jew, quietly apologising for what they had done was never sufficient. A public rite was required. Now that rite was an act which made one an ally with the exalted Christ in order to be saved from the final curses of the Law. In forty years’ time, those Jews who wanted to affirm Christ without publicly identifying with him (and therefore against his enemies) were trapped in the city of Jerusalem when the armies of Titus Vespasian besieged the city.

Acts 22:16 is written in a similar context. Paul had unjustly murdered and imprisoned many Christians (Acts 9:1-2), but upon being confronted by the risen Christ he immediately realised his wrongdoing. For him to quietly return to being a Pharisee was impossible. He needed to publicly identify with Christ and with the Church which he had persecuted, in order to be saved from the wrath to come. This was the meaning of his Baptism.

So what does Baptism mean for us today, since we have no “Mosaic” curses hanging over us? 1 Peter 3 tells us that Baptism means than when others revile and slander us for our faith (3:9, 3:14), we can stand firm and identify with Christ (3:15-16). We know that God will judge the wicked and vindicate his people in history, if we are patient. Baptism assures us that, though the nations rage against Christ, he will have the final word. Baptism is not like Old Covenant rites which simply “put away the uncleanness of the flesh.” It is the legal “testimony of a good conscience before God” (3:21), an act which shows that we are not ashamed of Him, that He might not be ashamed of us.

Christian, remember what you declared at your Baptism.

There are no “Abrahamic” promises concerning offspring — or real estate — for New Covenant believers.

Like the dogma of evolution, the doctrine of paedobaptism is not supported by indisputable evidence. Rather, the data must be interpreted through the lens of a pre-existing framework. The paedobaptistic lens is, however, a biblical one, being Abrahamic, and it comes in extremely handy when used in the right way. It deals with the few texts which paedobaptists rely on for proof, showing that they are not establishing a revised Abrahamic tent, but bringing the old one to an end.

The text I deal with here is Peter’s mention of the Jews, their children, and those afar off, in Acts 2. The idea that the phrase “you and your children” has anything at all to do with Christians is ruled out by the context. The audience was the “men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” (2:14), “Men of Israel” (2:22), “brothers” (2:29), and “all the house of Israel” (2:36). Peter, who famously quotes Joel, was speaking to Jews about their accountability to the Covenant made with Abraham. But that Covenant was drawing to an end.

However, this does not explain why Peter mentions three groups of people, “you, your children and those afar off” (2:39). A clue to part of the answer is found in the preceding verses. Peter concludes his speech and the Jewish men respond:

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 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?”

The men are afraid because they have realised their blood guilt, not only of a brother like Abel but of the very Seed promised in Genesis 3, a promise later ratified in Abraham. Worse, these were likely some of the same people who, after Pilate washed his hands of the execution of Jesus, declared their conviction of his guilt by taking any liability for the shedding of innocent blood upon themselves.

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:24-25).

Among Orthodox Jews today, offspring is still of prime importance. A proselyte cannot convert to Judaism without a commitment to marriage and fatherhood. Jesus was cut off without any offspring, and these men, knowing the Old Testament, realised that they, too, were liable to being cut off without any “Abrahamic” inheritance.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. (Isaiah 53:8)

They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. The man who is the most tender and refined among you will begrudge food to his brother, to the wife he embraces, and to the last of the children whom he has left, so that he will not give to any of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because he has nothing else left, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in all your towns. (Deuteronomy 28:52-55)

The curses in Deuteronomy 28 did indeed fall upon Israel one generation after Peter’s proclamation, upon these men and their children, the children whom Christ told the women weeping for Him to weep for instead. The final generation of the children of Abraham according to the flesh was either destroyed or sold into slavery, carried back to Egypt in ships as Moses predicted (Deuteronomy 28:68).

The interesting thing is that these men and their children, those who believed, could be delivered from this terrible judgment upon Israel by putting themselves under the blood of Christ in a different way. In circumcision, in the blood sprinkling at Sinai, and in the Levitical rites, His blood had always been upon them, for blessing or for cursing.

And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words. (Exodus 24:6-8)

But now in Christ, Abraham had obtained a heavenly country, so an earthly Abrahamic inheritance, both the fruit of the Land and of the womb, became redundant. This is why the Jewish Christians, unlike Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:6-9), sold their lands (Acts 4:34-35).

So, there is really no doubt about who these children were. But the identity of “those far off” is more difficult to discern. Are they the Jews and Jewish proselytes scattered across the Roman empire, or is Peter referring to Gentiles? The Abrahamic Covenant promised an earthly inheritance of not only Land and womb (narrowing the curse of barrenness upon Adam and Eve to Abram and Sarai that it might be borne and resolved) but also promised that all the families of the “earth” (literally, ’adamah, the ground, and thus all mankind) would be blessed.

Not only was the promise of the Spirit for the Jews, but also the Gentiles, which later events in Acts make plain. Not only Jews but “those far off,” both Jews and Gentiles, received the Spirit of God. Paul uses similar language concerning Gentiles in Ephesians 2, where Jew and Gentile are united in a new household of faith. The Ephesian Christians were no longer “strangers” who could attend only certain festivals, but heirs along with believing Jews.

And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians 2:17-18)

Paedobaptists assume that this language means Peter should really have said, in Acts 2:39:

For the promise is for you
and for your children
and for all who are far off,
and for their children,
everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

The problem is that this is not what Peter says, and to conveniently assume that this is what he meant is to ride roughshod over the entire Abrahamic Covenant, the one which is supposed to provide all that imaginary support for the practice of paedobaptism.

Not only is Peter’s audience different from that of Paul, Paul makes no mention whatsoever of children as part of the promises of the New Covenant. Certainly, he instructs the saints concerning parenting, and marriage, and even instructs the children, but there is no “promised seed.” This is because, after the flood, where all flesh was “cut off,” all the cutting off was done in the microcosm of Israel for the sake of the life of the world. The children in Acts 2 are mentioned because all of the Jewish rites, and indeed the Temple, were still in place. The children are mentioned because they were still under the curses of Moses if their parents disobeyed the Lord.

If the Jews would not be “brought near” in Christ (our “near bringing” or sacrifice), they would be brought near for destruction. If they would not celebrate “Ingathering” but instead rejoice as rebels in a Passover already made redundant by Christ and His cup, they would be gathered as food on the table for the Roman eagles.

All of the Jews who rejected Christ, and their children, and indeed all of the Jews and Jewish proselytes (whom Jesus called “twice children of hell”) from across the empire were trapped in Jerusalem by Titus, whose clever strategy had been to wait until Passover to besiege the city. If the identity of “those far off” in Acts 2 is indeed Jewish, these are the people whom Peter was referring to, those who were either still under the Law, or who had placed themselves under it voluntarily. I believe this is the most likely solution, given the context. But those curses were finished in AD70.

However, even if Peter is referring to Gentiles, the architecture of this favourite proof text of paedobaptists betrays them. It not only follows the Covenant-literary structure, hinting at the Ten Words, working from above, to beside, to below, it is actually a textual map of the progress of the Gospel, by the Spirit, from Jerusalem into all the empire before AD70. The shape of the verse itself defines both the temporal and geographical boundaries of its scope. So, whether “those far off” are Jews or Gentiles, either way, the reach of Acts 2:39 ended with the abolition of the oikoumene.¹The oikoumene was the “household” of the empires established by God in the book of Daniel. The destruction of the Herodian Land beast and the Neronic Sea beast in the Revelation ended not only the division between Jew and Gentile but the Covenantal authority of these institutions. See James B. Jordan, The Handwriting On The Wall, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, or search this blog for the tag oikoumene.

TRANSCENDENCE

HIERARCHY

ETHICS

OATH/SANCTIONS

SUCCESSION

The architecture of the verse puts a three-level house at both altars, the microcosmic one (Jerusalem) and the Jews (or believing Gentiles) throughout the  oikoumene, neither of which exist any longer. The fulfilment of the Feast of Booths, also known as Ingathering, was predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24:31, and likely occurred just before the siege of Jerusalem.²See Sin City – 3.

In the Garden of Eden, the Covenant “Oath” was the failed confession of Adam, his unwillingness to submit to the authority of heaven, and the Covenant “Sanctions” was the limited curse of barrenness upon the fruit of the Land and womb. This is the difference between baptism (oath), and circumcision (sanctions). The testimony of Jesus is the oath upon the lips of the faithful, and in Him there are no Mosaic Sanctions upon our fruitfulness. This is why there are no “Abrahamic” promises concerning offspring — or real estate — for New Covenant believers. There are certainly correspondences, but they transcend the originals. We are called to give up our families and possessions for the sake of the Gospel, yet are told we will receive siblings, sons, houses and lands in this life the way Jesus did (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:28-30), by adoption, since one day we shall possess them all. Land and offspring were closely related in Abraham’s earthly inheritance, but the New Covenant is about a heavenly country, and about “sons of God,” those who believe the Word as Abraham did, and become the friends, the confidants, of God (Isaiah 41:8; John 15:15; James 2:23).

Satan’s desire was always to turn the “pruning” of circumcision into an ax laid at the root of the tree of Israel.

A handful of treatments of the “massacre of the innocents” by Herod the Great see this bloodshed as the first of the New Covenant’s martyrs. But these miss the point of Matthew’s use of the word “fulfilled,” rendering it as good as meaningless. This massacre was the harbinger of the end of the old era and its promises. It said nothing about the promises of the new.

There is no way that this is the first of a series of new incidents, that is, Christian martyrdoms. Either this event simply continues the murders of offspring found throughout the Old Testament, or it brings them to an end. As my friend observes, suffering would now be different, but of course I would take this a little further than he would, concerning the significance of the sacraments.¹See my previous post, Feed My Lambs. Suffering would no longer be racial, tribal or genealogical, but voluntary. Killing Jews is genocide. Killing Christians is like killing Communists or capitalists. Its intention is not to wipe out a despised people but an intolerable “ideology.” The sons murdered in Matthew 2 were physical sons, sons of Abraham according to the flesh. Martyrs however are Sons of God.²See Provoking the Dragon.

New King on the Block

The era of Christ and His apostles was a period of transition, an overlap between the Old Covenant and the New. It was much like the time between the anointing of David and the death of Saul. Seen in this light, the parallels are remarkable. Just as the anointing of David was an irreversible divine decree, so was the life of Christ. And the Herods’ reaction was much the same as that of Saul. The sword of the Lord in the hand of a king maddened by jealousy was always a Covenant Sanction from the hand of God (1 Samuel 16:14). Saul would have seen both David, and later Jonathan, slain, had not the people restrained him. He employed an Edomite to slay the priests of God. The Herods were Edomites, and for the Herods, there was no restraint. Herod the Great murdered his own family as well as many rabbis. Like Pharaoh, the Herodian dynasty was the bloody hand of Cain. Sadly, the Jews failed to see that the “greatest builder in Jewish history”³Ken Spino, Crash Course In Jewish History. had built a Cainite city upon cursed ground.

 The Mutilation

The massacre if infants at the command of Herod the Great makes perfect sense as a sign of the imminent end of the Old Covenant, a Covenant which began with a barren womb and a barren Land. These infants sons — one from each woman, due to the directive concerning the age of the boys — were all Isaacs cut off because the end of the circumcision was nigh.

Circumcision was a genealogical “pruning,” bearing the curse upon Land and Womb in Genesis 3 for all nations that there might be a priestly nation, a people fruitful in righteousness. Satan’s desire was always to turn the “pruning” of circumcision into an ax laid at the root of the tree of Israel (Matthew 3:10, Luke 3:9), not a circumcision but a castration, a mutilation.⁴See New Covenant Virility 1 and 2.

The prophets condemned Israel’s shepherds when they became wolves, trading and tearing the sheep instead of leading them, shedding the blood of their own people while they perverted or ignored the substitutionary nature of the blood of the sacrifices. A cultic expression of this national self-mutilation was the worship of the priests of Baal, who cut themselves and threw themselves onto the altar on Mount Carmel. God would never accept human blood, at least not until truly blameless human blood was shed. This is why Paul refers to the Circumcision as the Mutilation, and wishes they would go the whole way and castrate themselves.

Ramah and Rachel

None of this is difficult to understand, but what is the reason for Matthew’s reference to Ramah and Rachel? Most commentators focus on Rachel, but the mention of Ramah is also significant, and its meaning is discovered in the “Covenant-literary” structure of of the text.⁵See also Matthew’s Literary Artistry.

In this passage, Ramah occurs at Ascension, which corresponds to the Bronze Altar (the Land) and the Table (the Firstfruits). For Israel, the foundational Ascension was the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah. Her subsequent idolatry led her into the practice of false worship on the high places and child sacrifice in the pit, the Valley of Hinnom (Ge henna in Greek).

Failure to repent of false worship led to the slaughter and slavery of the children of Israel by Assyria and Babylon. The Lord protected Ramah and the other towns of the kingdom of Judah (Judah and Benjamin) from the Assyrians (Isaiah 10:24,27-29), but the continued corruption of Judah led to invasions by the Babylonians. It is believed that there was a prison camp at Ramah where the people of Judah were held before being carried into exile. This may be the background for Jeremiah’s mention of this town in 31:15. Jeremiah himself was imprisoned there for a time (Jeremiah 40:1).

What is the connection between Ramah and Rachel? Ramah was a town in the allotment of Benjamin, son of Rachel. He was the last son born to Jacob and his name means “son of my right hand.” Benjamin and Ramah thus symbolised an end to the immediate Succession of Israel, pointing to the cutting off of “the last son.”

Joseph’s brothers “slew” him, and Joseph tested them in return with the “slaying” of Benjamin, Rachel’s only other son, whom they presumed to be the only son of Rachel still alive. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt and all Israel suffered in slavery. Just so, Israel’s child sacrifices in the Valley of Hinnom led to that valley being filled with the bodies of the idolaters. In the first century, this massacre not only of the sons of the flesh but also of Israel’s sons of the Spirit (Abraham’s true sons) would lead to a final filling of Ge henna, this time not at the hands of Babylon (the first empire) but Rome (the last). The circumcision intended as mercy for Israel on behalf of all nations (to avoid another flood) was twisted into a kingdom of bloodshed, a land filled with violence (Genesis 6:11).

You and Your Children

This “head-and-body” multiplication of judgment helps us to make sense of the words of Jesus, who not only knew of the massacre of the innocents and His own miraculous rescue, but also what was in store for all the Jews who rejected Him. It is Jesus Himself, as the suffering prophet on the way to His death, who tells the “Rachels” weeping for Him to weep for their own children.

This is the context of Peter’s words to the Jews on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, a text upon which rests almost all the supposed weight of arguments for paedosacraments. However, even a cursory reading by a one-eyed, uneducated, blithering ignoramus like me reveals its context to be entirely Jewish, with not-so-subtle references to the treatment of Joseph by his brothers.

Brothers,… Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This clearly has nothing whatsoever to say about the children of Christians. This text is the Reformed equivalent of Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo diagrams. Although its abuse is so easily exposed, it remains in the textbooks because the cupboard is otherwise bare. Despite clear, concise and convincing arguments from myself and others, paedobaptists simply close their eyes and recite “You and your children” like some magic mantra. The irony is that Dispensationalists would likely understand this text perfectly!

Wait a minute, I hear. What about “those who are afar off”? Firstly, Peter was addressing all the house of Israel, and as is common in Scripture, but commonly overlooked, his literary architecture is triune, an oratory reference to the Tabernacle:

You (Word, Most Holy – Fathers)
Your children (Sacrament, Holy Place – Sons)
Those afar off (Government, Court – Spirit)

I suppose this is easy to dispute, but as it was with Moses’ supposed “murder” of the Egyptian, the true crime is identified through God’s righteous judgment upon it and the corresponding atonement. Those who rejected Peter’s warning to this last generation of the children of Abraham according to the flesh were cut off; the fathers, the sons, and even those far off. Not only were the Jews trapped in their own city, clever Titus waited until Passover before he besieged the city, so that Jerusalem would be filled with Jews from all over the empire, “those afar off.” In the final act, six thousand Jewish women and children were slain in one stroke when part of Herod’s Temple complex collapsed at the end of the Jewish war. And the best of the young men, the Josephs, were sold into slavery in Egypt. This “cutting off” brought an end to the Circumcision, the era of “sons,” and the inauguration of the age of the Spirit.

Conclusion

Circumcision was about pruning that there might be more fruit. Baptism is a celebration of the firstfruits of the Spirit, a public testimony. Good fruit makes the cultivation or non-cultivation of the tree irrelevant. To turn baptism into merely another sign of cultivation misses the point entirely at best, and at worst puts our children under a curse. The sign of the end of Christendom  and its carnal sacraments comes with a massacre of infants of untold proportions. The answer is certainly not more paedosacraments.

Baptism is not a Covenant boundary but a staff uniform.

“I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Romans 11:4)

There is much talk today about the dichotomy between the visible Church (those who physically participate) and the invisible Church (those who are truly regenerate). The dichotomy exists because it often seems, as it was in the first century, that “not all Israel is Israel.” But the Bible never makes this distinction.

Not all of those who participated in the flesh truly participated, or fellowshiped, in the Spirit. It was possible for Paul to speak of two classes of Israelites, the Jew and the “true Jew,” because the Jew-Gentile distinction still existed. It was possible to be circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart. It is certainly possible to be baptised in the flesh but not in the heart, but is this really the same problem? Is not the very definition of a Christian, a member of Christ, one who is circumcised in heart, a true Jew?

So, the only way for this to occur today is to either maintain that the one who claimed to be a Christian was mistaken or lying, or that there are two kinds of Christian, and unregenerate Church members can still have some kind of Covenantal “union with Christ” as all Jews were linked with Abraham. The question is this: Does the Bible have anything to say about this visible/invisible dichotomy that helps us without turning the Church into a new kind of Circumcision (God forbid)? Yes. There is a third way.

Men and Women

Paedobaptists insist that there is still come kind of social “Covenant people,” with the rite of baptism as the boundary of this “visible” assembly. They see their offspring as “Covenant children,” even though the New Testament never speaks this way. Certainly, the Church is a new kind of Israel, a holy people, a royal priesthood, but clearly this refers to the same kind of “true Judaism” explained in Romans by Paul. An uncircumcised heart makes outward circumcision — and thus outward baptism — meaningless. Since the Law is fulfilled, and the Jew-Gentile distinction finished, infant baptism is thus always already meaningless. Birth identity is now entirely irrelevant.

So how are we to understand an “Israel” that is made up only of believing “men and women.” Paedobaptists love to mention the household baptisms in the book of Acts, but conveniently neglect to mention the numerous instances where the phrase “men and women” appears.

And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women… (Acts 5:14)

But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:3)

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:12)

I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women… (Acts 22:4)

Indeed, if one does a search for the phrase “men and women” in the Old Testament, not only can it be seen to be very common, it is most often tied to some form of vow or legal witness (including the Nazirite vow), to singing (a prophetic role), or the voluntary offering of goods. These are all prophetic, all picturing the willing response of the Bride to her heavenly Bridegroom.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,  “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord… (Numbers 6:1-2)¹See Power on Her Head.

This is why there are both prophets and prophetesses. Even though God gave Adam a priestly role as bearer of the Law before Eve was created, it was after they sinned that the Lord required a voluntary response. He asked Adam to account for himself first, and then Eve. Their children were not present at court, yet their children were most certainly represented.

The Resurrection Body

Paedobaptists remind us that the children were included in the Passover meal, and the children obviously went with Moses through the “baptism” of the Red Sea. However, it was the adults who took the Covenant oath whose bodies fell in the wilderness, not their children. In Exodus 24, the children did not ascend the mountain to dine with God, only Moses, the representative of God, and the representatives of the people.

Is there any other Old Testament precedent for a demarcation that does not include the children? Certainly. It is the office of the prophet in its various forms, one who represents heaven on earth in some legal capacity. All Israel represented “all flesh,” that is, all the people of the earth, all nations, before heaven, and that is not the same thing. As James Jordan likes to say, the blood goes up and the Spirit comes down. Israel according to the flesh was about the offering of Isaac, the blood going up. The smoke rises as a sacrificial testimony only after the holy fire has fallen. The offering and testimony of a faithful, priestly Adam, led to the coming of the kingdom, and a prophetic body of “men and women.” This body is the body of Christ, and it is called the Church. It is not about the blood. It is not a body which represents the nations of earth before heaven. That was the role of Israel and is now the role of Christ, who presented His own blood as the final sacrifice.

The mediatory role of the Church is simply to tell the nations of this work of Christ. We eat His flesh and drink His blood, identifying with His death, that it might be His flesh torn and His blood spilled in our sufferings. That is why this new rite speaks not of the death of the firstborn but of the resurrection of the Bride. When Herod the Great murdered the infants, God did not act, despite the fact that these were sons of Abraham. But when the Jews murdered the apostles, the prophets whom Christ had sent, God acted, because these were “sons of God.” Your family is not God’s family (Luke 8:21).

The Voice from Heaven

As discussed previously, the Aaronic Order was Priesthood, Christ brought the Kingdom at Pentecost, and the Apostles began the era of Prophecy. Working backwards, we can understand the “adulthood” inherent in union with Christ if we look at the school of the prophets in Israel. Although it is mentioned only a few times, it gives us the architectural basis for a body which does not require children to be either baptised or communed. It is not about blood but Spirit. Baptism is not the Covenant boundary because the New Covenant has no boundaries. It is about the voice from heaven speaking on earth. (Click to enlarge.)

So when Paul speaks of a remnant in first century Israel which was much like the faithful prophets hidden from the murderous kings of previous centuries, we can be fairly sure he is referring to this guild or school of legal witnesses. They were in danger not because they were part of a social demarcation like circumcision or paedobaptism (bap-cision). They were Jews just like everyone else in the Land. The prophets had wives (or husbands) and children, but that was irrelevant to the office of prophet, and likewise of Christian. These were in danger because they were God’s officers, His repo men, Covenant witnesses. Baptism is about the authority to speak the Words of God by the Spirit, usually in the courts of rulers.

False Prophets

There will be false Christians just as there were false prophets, but the definition of Christian and prophet remains ethical rather than social. The rite of paedobaptism is thus an unclear testimony, an unworkable fusion of flesh (social) and Spirit (ethical), and these two lust against each other. We know that not all the prophets were “true Jews” because we know what happened to Gehazi. But that in no way confuses the definition of “prophet” any more than an apostate from the Church redefines “Christian.” And even that story reveals to us, in the baptism of Naaman the Syrian, that in God’s eyes a believing, obedient Gentile was a true Jew. There were two classes of Jews, because not all were believers. But there is only one class of Christian, because there is no longer any “carnal” Covenant demarcation. A non-believing Church member is not a Christian.

So, what is baptism?

Baptism is a delegation of legal authority, the beginning of a ministry of testimony and possibly suffering. In that regard, the Church is not a nursery but a seminary for the Spirit-filled, trained in the Words of God each week that we might speak them before kings. Baptism is not a Covenant boundary but a staff uniform. The Church is a union of the flesh (visible – Priestly) and Spirit (invisible – Kingdom within you) but the proof of this union is profession and continued witness, that is, neither visible nor invisible but audible (Prophecy).

An infant cannot make a profession, a proclamation, as even Abraham did as he ministered and testified throughout Canaan (Genesis 13:4). Ours is the ministry of invocation. Because it is social rather than ethical, paedobaptism is anti-Gospel. What does it say?

“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13)

“But Peter said, ‘I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you.”’ (Acts 3:6)

Israel consistently failed to keep the final feast, the Feast of Sukkot, because she took her calling to be elitist rather than priestly. She thought her calling, gifts and purification were for herself, rather than for the healing of the nations.

Part I   Part II

This brings us to the New Testament, and the final years of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was dealing with the house of Israel but also with Gentiles, as a precursor to the ministry of the apostles. His ministry, like that of Moses, included the appearance of the glory cloud at significant moments. Through Jesus’ atonement for sin, Israel was about to enter into God’s rest. This time, it was the heavenly country perceived by all the saints, not a temporary house of branches like Canaan. However, this Feast of Clouds would require temporary shelters to become “houses of fire,” as a witness to the glory of God in His people.

The first sign was the Day of Pentecost. A single house was filled with a mighty, rushing wind, signalling the presence of God, just as His presence moved into the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple once His instructions had been obeyed. The Spirit anointed human lampstands with oil and tongues of fire measured out Yahweh’s architecture not in gold or silver (Acts 3:6) but in human character restored to health.

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. (Acts 3:6-8)

However, this Pentecostal house was but a single house. A greater sign was required to indicate that the third promise to Abraham was finally being fulfilled: the blessing to all nations. After Pentecost, Acts records four events where entire households were visited by God. These correspond to the four “Altar horn” corners of the Land, whose territory was later expanded into four Gentile beasts as guardian cherubim around God’s throne. It appears that they correspond these four Gentile empires, but also to the four gospels, which are the horsemen of the apocalypse. Now that Christ had ascended, the four horns of atonement had become four winds of the Spirit.

This final “household” sign is also the point at which Paul completes his official witness to Jewish synagogues. Maintaining their allegiance to Herodian worship, they have become houses filled with demons, strange fire. At Maturity, the Bible Matrix pattern moves from head to body, from Israel to the nations, from heaven to the filling of the sky and the sea.

These “household conversions” were clearly not the norm, because the fact that all believed before they were baptized is specifically mentioned in three of the four instances. (The fact that it is not mentioned in the case of Lydia is beside the point, since Acts makes clear what were the qualifications for baptism, and it was not membership in a believing household.)

Moreover, the normal effect of the Gospel was a house divided. Jesus had stated that the Gospel would be a sword: “…a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” (Matthew 10:36) To claim that these miraculous events are the norm to support an unbiblical agenda is akin to claiming that the apostolic gifts continued unabated after the destruction of the Temple (which was also heralded with miraculous signs), or that all babies in the womb are filled with the Spirit as was John the Baptist. If a signpost is the norm, it isn’t a signpost. It’s a fencepost.

So, what was the purpose of these four “household” events?

The movement in each is from a faithful household head who believes to an entire body of believers (including family members and servants), just like the initial “house-filling” of Pentecost was being measured out “architecturally” across the empire. Each event also incorporates a Jewish witness and Gentile “sponsors,” Graeco-Romans who bring their glory into the Church. The first and last are vindications of prior belief of entire households (Day 1 and Day 4), and the other two are conversions of entire households.

These believing households were four horns which put the old Israel, the Jewish rulers who rejected Pentecost, on the Altar, ready for the fires of the Roman armies.

These believing households were also four compass points on a new Israel, four Tabernacles at an empire-wide Feast of Clouds. They were a Pentecostal sign to the Jews that their Abrahamic ministry to the nations had been fulfilled. The transformation of these signature Gentile households into “booths” meant condemnation for Herod’s “Tabernacle.” As it was with Peter’s speech on the Day of Pentecost, and the miraculous apostolic gifts, these new hybrid (mixture) houses were a warning to Jews during the “overlap” of Covenant administrations between AD30-70. This was the final stage of the Abrahamic Covenant before it was finished. It could at last be seen that all of Israel’s history was prefigured in her festal calendar (see Bible Matrix).

We don’t hear about household conversions after Acts 18. It was an “Abrahamic” sign, but the end of Abraham, not a new beginning. Israel was finally purified, the ungodliness banished from Jacob (Romans 11:27) and she had completed her ministry. The only “household of faith” mentioned after this is the gathering of believers.

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10)

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God… (Ephesians 2:19)

As Revelation 2 shows us, every Church is a household with its own fire, a Lampstand de-centralized and able to multiply across the world. But these lamps are trimmed and oiled by Jesus, who judges them first, nipping their sins in the bud, and then judges the house where they were allowed to become full grown.

For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)

The Black Sabbaths were over for everyone except the old tent of God, whose priests and kings had kindled a strange fire and become a new Egypt. She would lose her lampstand be burned with fire. The gloom of utter darkness had been reserved for her wandering stars. The day had dawned and the entire world was now filled with light. And all Jerusalem, once the Abrahamic navel of the world, was a barren womb shrouded in the darkness of an empty tomb.

_____________________________________________
[1] Ascension concerns the blameless man bound and exalted, like Joseph or Daniel. The correspondence for Greece might have something to do with the rescue of Jerusalem from an invading Alexander.

Flavius Josephus in “The Antiquities of the Jews” Book XI, chapter VIII, p 350. Tells this story of Alexander the Great arriving in Jerusalem:

“And when he (the High Priest) understood that he (Alexander the Great) was not far from the city (Jerusalem), he (the High Priest) went out in procession with the priests and the multitude of citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations … and when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him (Alexander the Great), thought that they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king’s displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he (Alexander the Great) saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed in fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his miter on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of G-d was engraved, he (Alexander the Great) approached by himself, and adored that name (the name of G-d), and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did altogether, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; where upon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind (They thought Alexander was crazy for bowing before the High Priest). However, Parmenio alone went up to him (Alexander the Great) and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, “I did not adore him, but that G-d who hath honored him with his high-priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit (high priestly garment), when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself, how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he (G-d) would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is, that having seen no other in that habit (high priestly garment), and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind.”

There is a tradition that says when the high priest met Alexander the Great outside Jerusalem that he took with him the book of Daniel and showed Alexander the prophecy concerning him. It is said that this so moved Alexander that he went to the temple to offer a sacrifice and worship God. [link]

[2] Justus means “upright, just,” and Crispus means “curly headed.” Perhaps the combination of priesthood and kinghood in the Great Shepherd (Revelation 1:13-14).

A Debtor to the Law

“Any commentary that misses the fact that the first century isn’t about Jew versus Gentile, but about the Noahic nations of the old world versus the birth of the Christian nations of the new, is way off the mark.”

We continue with the Deuteronomy section of Galatians, which has seven cycles. Paul moves from a Division/Passover motif to an Ascension/Firstfruits motif. That is, Paul gets all Levitical. It’s all about sex and death.

This post has been refined by fire and included in a new book, The Shape of Galatians.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

Covenant Structure in Zechariah 11

“The meek will eventually inherit the earth but the wicked will always have to buy it.”

Reading the book of Zechariah, like most Bible prophecies, is like tuning in to Season 3 of any good TV series without watching Seasons 1 and 2. Our problem today is not that we haven’t actually read the books of Moses (well, I hope we have) but that we haven’t been taught to read them into the prophets and the New Testament. We treat them like we’ve now switched channels, or shows, and the authors are starting with a blank canvas! However, the canvas isn’t blank. The prophets were God’s repo men, and their messages were all framed in the context of the Covenant contract. What amazes me is how inventive the prophets are (or the Spirit is) in coming up with something new and surprising using the patterns laid down in Moses.

Another strange habit we have is tracing Old Testament quotations in the Gospels and sticking a “Messianic prophecy” label on them without much attempt to understand what those verses meant in their original context. It used to bother me that nobody seemed interested in what they meant and why on earth a particular verse would come to the author’s mind in the first place in support of his case for Jesus. The answer is that God does not work in “snapshots” but in stories, through processes, and within architectures.

One of the more complex references is the mention of “the potter” in Zechariah 11 and Matthew 27:7. Not only is the reference intriguing but the original passage is just as confusing. Zechariah 11 is just plain weird to us, because we think like the viewer who has only just tuned in. If we take the structure into account, it may answer some burning questions.

Firstly, it seems to me that the ‘cycle’ in Zechariah 11 actually starts in v. 4, so vv. 1-3 belong to the previous section. Why do I say this? It concerns the destruction of the “cedars” of the Temple, as an ironic cloudy Tabernacles! (The other name for the feast is Booths, which is more literally “clouds.”) So those verses are the end of the previous cycle.

TRANSCENDENCE – Creation (Genesis)

So verses 4-5 begin the cycle. It begins with a new Initiation. The Lord asks Zechariah to “lead” the flock of God. He condemns the kings who have exalted themselves against the Law. So we have the Call, and also a reference to Divine Authority (the tablets in the Ark of the Covenant).

HIERARCHY – Division (Exodus)

After Initiation comes Delegation, or in sacrificial terms, the cutting of the sacrifice. In verse 6, the Lord pronounces a “Passover,” but one from which no one will escape. The “king” has become a king like Pharaoh, murdering God’s “firstborn”, Israel, so the Lord Himself will not intervene. However, He has commissioned Zechariah for an ironic “tour of duty”: he would lead the flock, not to green pastures, but to slaughter.

ETHICS 1 – Ascension (Leviticus/Priesthood) – Law given

In 7-9, Zechariah becomes the blameless “firstfruits” with two staffs, Favor (Church) and Union (State). Staffs are an extension of a man’s reach, and are “legal” tools. The left and right “hands” of the Tabernacle are the Table and the Lampstand, priesthood and kingdom. Once united in a Man they lead to prophecy, true legal witness.

Zechariah tends the sheep. He destroys the “three shepherds” in “one month”, which is possibly a reference to Numbers 18:15-16:

Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the Lord, shall be yours. Nevertheless, the firstborn of man you shall redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. And their redemption price (at a month old you shall redeem them) you shall fix at five shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs.

The subject is the redemption of the firstborn, and if we notice that the price was specified in sanctuary silver, it will help us with what comes later on in the passage.

The word “destroyed” is the word used in Exodus 9:15, in the words Moses is to speak to Pharaoh before the seventh plague, because he has exalted himself:

For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go.

The theme is “Levitical,” the tithe. Festally-speaking, it is the Feast of Firstfruits, pointing to the Ascension of Christ. But who are the three shepherds? When Jesus appears as the ‘firstfruits lamb” in Revelation 5, He is a union of priest (lamb – forming), king (seven eyes – filling) and prophet (seven horns – future), or in architectural terms, a combination of the three pieces of furniture in the Holy Place. So it would seem the “triune office” is in Zechariah’s cross hairs. Many commentators believe these shepherds are those rulers upon whom Christ pronounced Covenantal “woes.” Instead of being advocates for the people, they were legal accusers, just like their true father, Satan. They had exalted themselves as kings and they would be thrown down. The difference was that Satan knew he only had a short time. From Barnes’ notes:

And I cut off three shepherds in one month – Jerome: “I have read in some one’s commentary, that the shepherds, cut off in the indignation of the Lord, are to be understood of priests and false prophets and kings of the Jews, who, after the passion of Christ, were all cut off in one time, of whom Jeremiah speaketh, “The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law knew Me not; the pastors also transgressed against Me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things which do not profit” Jeremiah 2:8, and again, “As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests and their prophets” Jeremiah 2:26; and “they said, Come, let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” Jeremiah 18:18.

Based on what follows in the text, this “disempowerment” refers to Jesus’ ministry to the Jews. In each case He was the “firstborn” son who received the Father’s blessing: 1) circumcised as a Priestly Lamb and baptized as a Priest; 2) anointed as a Shepherd King after His baptism and received as the Son of David in Jerusalem; 3) commissioned as Divine Prophet at His transfiguration (just prior to the triumphal entry, which explains the “Hear ye Him” in Matthew 17:5) and authorized to speak the Father’s words to the rulers of the city. At each stage, His qualification disqualified the leaders of Israel, just as David’s anointing disqualified Saul.

However, the three stages of qualification would be “fractally” replicated in Israel. The process of destruction here is Ethical, Social, Physical, a reverse of Genesis 1-3.

ETHICS 2 – Testing (Numbers/Kingdom) – Law Opened

At the centre of the cycle (vv. 10-11), Israel’s Covenantal Favor is broken. The kingdom comes and her priesthood is no longer effectual. The priesthood and kingdom (forming and filling), are like the two bronze pillars of Solomon’s Temple.: they will be broken up. We saw the same action when Moses broke the first set of stone tablets. What is interesting is that these are not Mosaic tablets but Davidic staffs. The Word of the Lord is vindicated among the “peoples,” in this case, the tribes of Israel. The feast here is Pentecost, when many Jews believed. Revelation presents them as saints “sealed and numbered” (only Jews are numbered, and one of the themes here is the book of Numbers). The Covenant has been de-formed, but Israel would be given a chance to “fill up” her sins or her sufferings before the future age arrived..

ETHICS 3 – Maturity (Deuteronomy/Prophethood) – Law Received

This next stage corresponds to the feast of Trumpets, where Israel’s warriors are mustered and “redeemed.” Trumpets are silver. They summon Israel and they warn God’s enemies. It was at this point in Genesis 23 that Abraham purchased a cave and field from Ephron with “bridal” silver, and also at this point in Joshua 7 where Achan revealed his plunder, including silver, was hidden “in the earth” under his tent. Again, something to take note of for later.

The redemption price comes from Exodus 21:32. It is the price for a murdered bull or slave, which actually ties Zechariah’s service to the Bronze Altar (binding) rather than the prophetic Incense Altar (loosing). Remember, these two altars correspond chiastically in the pattern, one being the earthly country (bloody Adam) and the other the heavenly country (fragrant Eve). Silver has to do with loosing, with redemption. It is bridal, and military. It is also the plunder for Covenant obedience, and the legal witness (as fragrant, silvery smoke) that the Law has been satisfied.

The money is thrown into the Lord’s House, however, it is designated “to the potter.” Rather than ascending to heaven, it will be returned to the earth, hidden in the clay under Achan’s “Tabernacle.” The JFB commentary mentions that the Temple employed its own potter, and any “unclean” money went to pay him. It was a “talent” hidden in the ground. The idea is that the Covenant Head is not multiplied as a Body, bearing fruit, as desired by God. The potter worked in the Valley of Hinnom, where Jeremiah threatened the rulers of Judah by shattering pots (Jeremiah 19). This valley was where child sacrifices took place, and God judged Israel for this crime by filling it with their bodies. We see the same thing in the first century, beginning with Herod the Great’s slaughter of the innocents and ending with the Roman siege. The valley of the potter came to be known as Gehenna, a rubbish tip filled with fire and maggots.

The house of God and “clay” are both Ascension symbols concerning the firstfruits. Adam is lifted from the miry clay and made to stand upright. So perhaps the idea is that the “ascended” bridal Land is to be covered in sacrificial blood. The prophet himself has been redeemed and he has purchased a burial cave for the Bride. She will rest in the bosom of Abraham until his heavenly country is a place “prepared” by Jesus.

This section ends with a familiar “Trumpets” symbol of the brothers. Judah (the head) and Israel (the body) are divided. The reference is to the “new Covenant” made with these two houses, as predicted in Jeremiah 31 (known by some as the “Restoration Covenant”). It takes us from the beginning of Zechariah to the first century. Here they are not united but separated. There would be no real outcome in history in the first century. The point is that this “tribal” unity would be replaced by a greater unity, the one between Jew and Gentile, as Hebrews 8 explains.

“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13)

This brings us to the end of the triune “Ethics” section of the prophecy. At Ascension, the prophet united priesthood and kingdom, enabling him to speak as a prophet (Adam was to be the third tree in the Garden, whose fruit was righteousness, representing God as His Word). At Testing (Pentecost), the face of God stopped shining upon Israel-according-to-the-flesh. Maturity is about a “many” which are united with one mind. Here, the old Feast of Trumpets was annulled forever through the legal witness of the apostles, the testimony of Jesus, who like Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Gentiles. The Trumpets warned of the old walls coming down.

SANCTIONS – Conquest (Joshua/The Triune Man)

Now we come to the Day of Coverings, when the High Priest approached God for the Priesthood and the People, the head and the body. Atonement is about healing the Land, but God was raising up a shepherd who would not heal but devour. At this point in Jesus’ pattern, the High Priest exalted himself against the Son of God, the veil was torn, and a Roman soldier testified to Him. In the larger apostolic cycle, the Temple was completed (in defiance of Jesus’ words) and then destroyed only a few years later by armies of Roman soldiers. But it seems that the prophet is still speaking hear of the ministry of Jesus.

SUCCESSION – Glorification (Judges: Israel serves the Gentiles)

The cycle has covered de-forming and de-filling (Days 1-6) and now moves to de-future! The worthless king will be cut off. The right side of the Adam/Tabernacle is the kingly side. The sword-arm and the eye of judgment will be taken away. Israel will no longer have her own king sitting at court. Because she would not be a priest to the nations, she will serve a Gentile Solomon, the emperor (an ironic Booths). The initial fulfillment of this was the death of Herod on his throne, sitting in the Temple of God. The Lord turned him into a human Gehenna, filled with worms.

Jesus or Judas?

This brings us to an interesting aspect of the prophecy. Is the prophet predicting the actions of Jesus or Judas? Zechariah was from the tribe of Judah, and Judah would be divided like the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Judas (Judah) was himself a sign of what was coming upon all Judah. The Last Supper follows the order of Israel’s annual festal calendar, with Judas being expelled as the second goat, filled with the devil and carrying the sins of the nation to destruction. [1] Jesus and Judas are the positive and negative coordinates of the prophet’s “formula.”

Whose purchase?

Matthew 27 says that the chief priests and elders bought the potter’s field with Judas’ silver, as a place to bury Gentiles, the unclean.  Acts 1 implies that it was Judas’ purchase, but the theme that unites these two statements is Covenantal. Abraham purchased a parcel of the Land but his children would later inherit it as a gift. The meek eventually inherit the earth but the wicked will always have to buy it. [2]

The Valley of Hinnom

The Jews were no longer merely murdering their sons in a horrific reenactment of Passover, they were once again giving them to foreign armies in a horrific reenactment of the fall of Jericho. After Pentecost, the children they were killing were the children of God, that is, the regenerate. [3] The idea is that they were not honoring the firstfruits and redeeming the firstborn at all but slaughtering them and keeping the money, just like our own culture is today. God would cut them off for their theft of a tongue of gold (the false prophet, Adam) [4], a robe from Babylon (the deceived harlot, Eve), and the redemption silver (the beast, the offspring of the shining Serpent), them and their children, like the family of Achan.

Why Silver?

Besides the obvious references, silver is an Old Testament type. It is bridal. Under Solomon, the great bridegroom, Jerusalem was filled not only with gold but silver.

“And the king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stone…” (1 Kings 10:27)

The silver of Abraham was a downpayment on a heavenly country, the silvery smoke on the Incense Altar of resurrection. The silver of Achan and Judas fell like ashes through the grate in the Bronze Altar, into the earth like the sons of Korah, the false priests whose incense was rejected. Like Adam, like Judas, like Judah, an earthly altar without Pentecostal fire will only ever be a place of death, a field of blood. It always splits open in the end and returns to the dust (1 Kings 13:1-5). [5]

____________________________________
[1] See One Taken, One Left Behind and Fool’s Gold.
[2] James Jordan sees the fulfillment of the Jubilee in the conquest of the world by the Gospel. All the Land is returning to its original owner, and His brothers.
[3] See Provoking the Dragon.
[4] See A Tongue of Gold.
[5] See Bridal Men for how Esau and Jacob correspond to the two altars.

In his book Why Baptize Babies?, Mark Horne writes:

The apostle Peter makes it clear that God’s Covenant still involves the promise to our children:

For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:39) We who now profess Christ are among those who are “far off,” whom the Lord has called to himself. Just like those to whom Peter first preached, the promise is not only for us but for our children as well. (p. 23)

So much that has been written about baptism is nebulous and confused. My friend Mark’s short book, however, is an excellent summary of this doctrine. Having his points honed into silver bullets makes them easier to discern, and easier to deflect!

Another paedobaptist friend, Luke Welch, recently pointed out the very strong connection between Acts 2 and Genesis 17. The promise “to you and your children” is tied to the promise to Abraham, which is wonderful news to those who want to use baptism as a sort of “regenerative circumcision” for both males and females.

Mark and Luke want to turn Acts 2 into the beginning of another “Abrahamic” genealogy, rather than the end of the old one. Acts 2 is not a new beginning in that sense. Genesis 17 and Acts 2 are the “bookends” of the fleshly Messianic genealogy. But the coming of the Spirit of God, and the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ, was putting an end to the social division of circumcision. Baptism has social implications, but its heart is not carnal but ethical. Peter’s words do not mean what Mark and Luke want them to mean. They are reading them through their doctrinal construct, which overrides both the Covenant context and the historical context of the text.

The words in Acts 2 were spoken to the last “generation” of the children of Abraham. Read the passage. The hearers were Jews and proselytes, but all were within the bounds of the circumcision. These words were a Covenantal proclamation by God’s prophets to all members of the circumcision. This means they are a warning of coming Covenant Sanctions, which entail both blessings and curses. In 40 years there would be no more circumcision, at least none recognized by the One True God.

Peter addresses them as “Israel” a number of times, and ends with “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” If these people believed, their children would be saved, not from eternal judgment but from the horrors coming upon Judaism across the empire. Quoting Thomas Madden’s Empires of Trust, Peter Leithart writes:

Madden examines the Jewish War (66-70 AD) in some detail, using it as an illustration of the difficulty of controlling religiously motivated terrorism, and he interestingly points out that Diaspora Jews not only celebrated the exploits of Palestinian guerillas but also initiated conflicts in their own cities:

“As news of the violence in Jerusalem spread [in 66], the killing was mirrored across the region and then the empire. . . . Diaspora Jews sympathized with their coreligionists, but few would condone this sort of slaughter.  And yet, in some places in the Middle East, Jews celebrated the massacre of Romans.  Several cities with large Jewish populations saw open warfare between them and their Gentile neighbors. . . .

“In places like Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Philippi, Tyre, and Ascalon, the Jews had the worst of it, with many thousands killed.  In other places like Sebaste, Gaza, Anthedon, Gaba, and the Decapolis it was the Jews who won out, massacring the Gentiles.”  After six thousand Romans were killed in Caesarea Maritima, the citizens of Damascus “poured into the streets killing Jews wherever they could find them.”

This is of interest partly because of the light it sheds on the New Testament. Paul and the other apostles write to Christian communities scattered about the Mediterranean about a coming day of retribution. On a preterist reading of the NT, these are likely references to the Jewish War and AD 70. But why would Christians in Corinth or Rome care? Madden’s information clarifies this: As in the book of Esther, the conflict of “true Jews” and the “Agagites” is not confined to a single region or city but spreads throughout the empire. [1]

To claim that these words to the house of Israel are the beginning of new promises to the Jew Gentile church rather than being an announcement of the coming fulfillment of an old promise (and thus its historical end) is a terrible misuse of the text.

How do we know that his mention of “the children” is Abrahamic in scope?

In two ways:

1) Because if they rejected Peter’s words, they, their children, and all the Jews within the empire would fall under the curse of the Mosaic Law when it fell for the final time. When Jesus said,

“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.” (Luke 23:28)

he was not speaking to the Church. And neither was Peter on the Day of Pentecost. He was putting Israel on the altar for the final offering. Just as the Lord called Adam to confess what he had done, so the prophets were again calling Israel to confess what she had done and be forgiven.

This was a call to reject all confidence in the flesh of Abraham and to embrace the Spirit of Abraham. The only flesh of Abraham which mattered was no in heaven, presented as blameless to God. Circumcision was now meaningless. The nation had taken its Messianic genealogy and turned genealogy into an idol. She would suffer the destruction of that idol. All the genealogies were destroyed with the Temple, along with 6000 women and children who sought protection in its cloisters which collapsed during the final battle. God was cutting off the genealogical Covenant. Flesh was coming to an end. He did not replace it with another genealogical Covenant. He transformed the very nature of the Covenant by putting it through the fire (1 Corinthians 3:15).

2) Because 3000 souls were added to the Church that day. The reference is to the 3000 people who had taken the Covenant oath at Sinai and immediately broken it. The key here is not genealogical (tribal/cultural) division but an “ethical” profession based upon faith in God’s word and character. The Day of Pentecost was a reversal of the events at Sinai because these people had heard and believed. Infants cannot take the Covenant oath, even though they are under the shelter of those who can. Baptism is for those who can take the “oath of allegiance” to Jesus, the profession of faith. This is why Paul says:

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is for those whose hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit, and repented and believed. It is not genealogical. To make it so is to undo what Christ achieved.

So, does God not care about children? Certainly He does. But God also cares about the entire world, and He delegated authority over it to a man, who messed it up. Children are blessed or cursed at the hands of their parents, who are to be trees of righteousness, food and shelter. Baptism is for those who are righteous trees, that is, qualified by God as His representatives, as Adam should have been. We bring our children to Jesus because He was baptized, qualified, not because they need to be. There is no more social division.

As baptized saints, we represent Him to the world and speak His words. That’s what baptism is about, so to turn it into a new circumcision is to say that only the Church, as a genealogy/tribe, is answerable to God, when in fact, all nations are now called to repent.

____________________________________
[1] See Peter Leithart, Jewish War.

How does Peter see the apocalyptic imagery of Joel in the events of Acts 2?

The first step is to take note of the context of Joel’s prophecy. It is the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls. (Joel 2:32)

Even if we identify the context, it may sound to us as if Joel is still looking forward to the first century events at the end of his predictions. The unfortunate chapter break between 2 and 3 stops us reading further, but if we keep reading without a break, the beginning of chapter 3 makes it clear that Joel is still speaking about the restoration from exile. God would judge all the Canaanite nations, including Israel, who had behaved like a Canaanite. But only Israel would resurface from the “flood” of Babylonian control, while all the Canaanite powers remained scattered forever. And Israel would be vindicated across the world, from India to Ethiopia, in the events of the book of Esther (predicted in Ezekiel 38-39).

This means that the particular “day of judgment” had already passed by the time Peter quoted the prophet, so he is not quoting the prophecy to announce its soon fulfillment. He is, however, announcing a similar destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, with all that this entails.

The New Testament writers always quote the Old Testament “covenantally,” that is, the way God redeemed and avenged at such-and-such a time is now being repeated. A similar example is the reference in Hebrews to Jeremiah concerning “a new covenant.” In Jeremiah, the new covenant would re-unite Judah and Israel, north and south. By the first century, this was an event long fulfilled. The author of Hebrews is using the previous national “death-and-resurrection” to illustrate the inter-national one which was occurring in his day, that is, not a reunion of Israelite and Israelite into one natural body, but the reunion of Jew and Gentile into one spiritual body.

The second step is to take note of the meaning of the prophetic language. Blood and fire and smoke are potent images but together they speak of a process of transformation, the sacrificial rite. Blood is the natural body upon the altar. Fire transforms it into something new. Joel—and Peter—as prophets of God, are putting the Israel of their respective days on the altar. How is this possible?

These are things that take place on the “Land” (not the “earth”) because the Land throughout the Old Testament is a flat, four-cornered altar. The obedient offering of the firstfruits (such as Isaac) would allow the will of God to be done on earth as it was in heaven. It was an act of faithful gratitude which would allow God to pour out the rest of the harvest as a blessing to true Israel. For the unbelieving, an abundance of blessing would be a chance to fill up their sins and incur a greater judgment.

We see this on Mount Carmel, where Elijah’s holy sacrificial model of Israel (a twelve stone altar) calls down fire from heaven, and the entire mountain becomes a new Sinai, with the false priests slain and God vindicated. The Tabernacle was a model of Sinai, with the Bronze Altar as the raised earth, and the furnitures in the Holy Place signified the sacrificial blood (the Table), the fire (the Lampstand) and the fragrant savory smoke (the Incense Altar). The fragrant smoke was pleasing to God, a “legal witness” that the Law had been satisfied. Blood, fire and clouds of smoke make all Israel “the holy place.”

In the first century, the death of Christ was the offering of blood. Pentecost was the “holy fire” coming down from heaven, and the testimony of the apostles to an apostate Jerusalem and to the surrounding Gentiles was the savory smoke, after which came God’s blessings and curses upon the Jews for all time in AD70. In the Jewish war, as on Carmel, the liturgical model of Christian worship brought down the “days of vengeance.” Jerusalem herself was laid upon the altar, the entire Land covered in blood “up to the horses’ bridles.” Just as Israel was surrendered by God to Babylon due to her harlotries, idolatries, sorceries and abominations, so she would be left unprotected to be desolated by Rome, whom God would bring against her. At Pentecost, the glory of God did not fill the Temple but the faithful. As the faithful were gradually expelled from the Temple over the following decades, the presence of God was also expelled, which left it unprotected against invasion and plunder by Gentiles. The liturgical blood, fire and smoke of the New Covenant Israel resulted in literal blood, fire and smoke for old Israel.

The book of Revelation is strange to us because it is a sacrificial liturgy. It is the final sacrifice of the Old Testament: Israel herself. The believers ascended as smoke (the ascension offering in Leviticus 1, the true Isaacs, sons of Abraham by faith) and the unbelievers were swallowed by the Land, descending into the earthen Altar, as ashes, Adamic dust, like the false priests, the sons of Korah. The Altar was then split in two (symbolically under the feet of Christ) and the ashes poured out. All these allusions help us to understand what is going on. To refuse to understand the Bible on its own terms (with its constant sacrificial/liturgical models) is to refuse to take it as it was intended.

Finally, there are those who believe that the apocalyptic language in Peter’s quotation is still unfulfilled. They state that because Israel rejected the Spirit the full pouring out was postponed until “the last days” of Israel which are still future. Incredibly, these teachers overlook the destruction of Jerusalem as an important event in Covenant history. Not only this, but they fail to see that this is another death-and-resurrection of Israel, who emerges from the flames once again renewed, but this time as the Christian Church. There is no Israel besides the Church. So, how should we then understand the phrase “the last days” in Peter’s quotation? The New Testament documents are legal documents written by legal witnesses, giving testimony about a coming judgment. Following the pattern of the Old Testament prophets, they are preaching to cause a moral response in the audience of their day. So although we can apply their warnings in certain ways today, their warnings are obviously concerning the last days of the Old Covenant, not the last days of the New. The failure of most of evangelicalism to notice this is why the New Testament has little grip on reality in the lives of modern believers. The fulfillment of the warnings in the judgment of God, in Christ, is either overlooked or erased entirely from our understanding of the birth of the Church.

_________________________________________
ART: St Peter Preaching at Pentecost, sculpture by Christopher Slatoff.