Alpha and Omega

Since the sacred architecture of the Jew-Gentile social structure set up in Daniel was a spiritual expansion of the previous physical sanctuaries, we should not be surprised to find its shape serving as the foundation for the New Testament. Since the Holy Place symbolised the court of the King of Heaven, the Tabernacle sheds some helpful light on Jesus’ cryptic description of judgment from His throne in Matthew 25. It not only becomes clear why the Lord uses sheep and goats as symbols for Gentile nations, but their locations and destinies bring to an end a narrative thread which can be traced back to Genesis 4.

Matthew 25:31-46 is the “Judges” step of the Covenant Ethics component of Matthew’s five-fold Covenant progression. You can see where this passage fits in the overall structure here.

Following on from Matthew 24, its fulfilment is clearly first century, describing a judgment which would take place within a generation. Concerning the context and purpose of the passage, Chris Wooldridge wrote in a guest post:

In his covenant with Abraham, God had promised that nations would be blessed and cursed through him. In 70 AD, the Abrahamic covenant came to an end and the blessings and curses were distributed. Nations were resurrected, stood before Christ in heaven and were judged in accordance with their treatment of the people of Abraham. Israel herself would be judged in accordance with her treatment of the apostolic church. The blessing would take the form of reigning with Christ in heaven for the remainder of the new covenant era (Revelation 20:4-6). The cursing would take the form of returning to the grave in “shame and contempt” (Daniel 12:2) to await the end of the new covenant and eternal destruction in the lake of fire.

In context, this speech is a prediction of the judgment of the oikoumene [1], the final stage in what we refer to as the “Old Covenant.” All nations would be judged, yet, as we shall see, both the symbols Jesus uses and the pattern of Jesus’ words are very obviously Jewish.

A Ram and a Goat

The events leading up to AD70 avenged the blood of all the prophets beginning with Abel. In the primeval world, and in Temple architecture, this blood is tied to the demarcations of “Land” (both the Land outside Eden, and later the Land promised to Abraham), not the Garden or the World. Since the entire empire was considered part of the household of God during this era, instead of using the “World” beasts of Daniel 7 in Matthew 25 to describe the nations of the oikoumene, Jesus uses the sacrificial “Land” animals of Daniel 8. Concerning these symbols in Daniel, James Jordan writes:

Daniel sees two animals. They are not beasts this time, but sacrificial animals: a ram and a goat. They represent Persia and Greece. Each morning and each evening Israel would offer a lamb (Exodus 29:38-42). This fact is central to the present vision, and will explain why Persia and Greece are pictured as flockmembers. The flock of God is no longer only Israel, but also the nations of the God-established Oikumene, though not yet the whole world.

The ram of Persia has two horns, one behind the other. The one in back is later, but is also longer. The first horn is Media, the second Persia, but it is one ram. The ram conquers to the west, north, and south; since it comes from the east it does not need to conquer to the east. God gives everything to the ram, and lets it rule the world (vv. 3-4, 20).

Then a male goat comes from the west, as the ram came from the east. They collide, and the goat is utterly victorious. The goat’s swift advance represents the amazing progress of the conquests of Alexander the Great. The great horn between the goat’s eyes is Alexander himself, but the horn is broken very quickly, because Alexander died at the age of 30. Then four new horns arose and took over Alexander’s empire.

Then a little horn grew up out of their midst. This is usually considered to represent Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ruler of the Northern part of Alexander’s broken empire. I shall argue below that it is actually a symbol of the Herodian line. The little horn’s oppression of the saints is then described (vv. 9-14, 23-26).

The Lord tells Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel. Gabriel explains that this vision pertains to the time of the end. The end of what? The end of the first creation, which came to a full close in AD70. Gabriel identifies the ram and the goat, and gives more information about the Herods (vv. 15-26)…

…we need to note that the ram and goat, or he-goat, are not “beasts” or wild animals, but “cattle” or domestic animals, and in particular they are animals used in the Levitical worship system. The ram, or male sheep, is required for the Trespass or Desanctifying offering, which is performed to cover high-handed sins, sins that in some sense put blood on the hands that needs to be washed off. The he-goat is required from a civil officer (hence, from a king) for a Sin or Purification offering, which is performed to cover sins of wandering (“inadvertency”), sins that in some sense put dirt on the feet that needs to be washed off. (Leviticus 4-5.)

The Passover ritual could use either a male sheep or a he-goat that was one year old (Exodus 12:5).

Perhaps more importantly, however, is what we find in Numbers 28-29, which is that on every important festival occasion, both a ram and a he-goat were brought to the altar.

As has been pointed out by Rodriguez, this is all related to the Continual of verses 11-12. The Continual, or tamid, is sometimes taken only for the evening and morning daily offerings, and this is indeed implied in verse 14 (“2300 evenings morning”). But the word is also used for all the continual daily activities in the Holy Place: the continual facebread, the continual incense, the lamp, and the fire in the altar.

What is the theology behind this imagery? It is this: The calling of Israel was to pray for and bring offerings near to God on behalf of the nations of the world. The ox was particularly for the High Priest and for Israel as a whole (Leviticus 4). But the daily offerings and the continual annual cycle involved the nations of the world, especially after the establishment of the Oikumene. The meaning is this: As long as the Jews are faithful and pray for the nations, offering rams and he-goats for the imperial leaders, then they will have good rams and he-goats as emperors. First the ram of Persia would come and deliver them from Babylon. Then, when the ram had ceased to do God’s bidding, a buck from Greece would arise and deliver them from Persian oppression (see Zechariah 9:1–8). But after the Greek deliverance, there would come a time when some evil Horn would wreck the Continual offerings. Such an evil Horn can only be a Jewish, and indeed priestly person, because no one else could wreck the system. Some pagan king putting a temporary halt to the offerings would count for nothing in God’s eyes. It was only His anointed priests who could defile the worship. In other words, the fact that the Horn is able to wreck the sanctuary and pervert the Continual makes clear that he symbolises, at least in part, a Jewish priestly power. [2]

Although Jesus uses similar sacrificial animals, His words concerning the judgment of the nations have a different purpose from Daniel 8. He is not speaking of separating Persians from Greeks. Greece conquered Persia, but those empires are not mentioned. Both animals were acceptable sacrifices, but Jesus accepts one and not the other.

As Jordan notes, the sheep concerned high-handed or deliberate sin (bloodied hands) and the goat concerned wandering astray (dirty feet).

Sheep: High-handed Sin
Goat: Wandering Astray

In Jesus’ day, the Jewish leaders were guilty of deliberate sin, since they possessed the words of God but instead taught their own distorted laws, misleading the people. It was the Jewish people who were guilty of “inadvertent sin,” since they were kept in ignorance, under the heavy burdens of the Oral Law, by their leaders. [3] Yet the leaders of Israel were to consider their people as brothers.

The Least Of My Brothers

An Israelite could take Gentile slaves, but not Hebrew ones. This was because Israelites were freedmen, and they would remain free as long as they faithfully served God, their heavenly master.

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.

“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:35-46)

Taking a Hebrew brother as a slave began with Jacob’s debt slavery to Laban and continued with the sale of Joseph by his brothers. This was an issue close to the Lord’s heart. Under King Zedekiah, the Jewish aristocracy reneged on the oath they had taken to release their Hebrew slaves. At heart, Israel had become another Egypt. This was the last straw before the destruction of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to make a proclamation of liberty to them, that everyone should set free his Hebrew slaves, male and female, so that no one should enslave a Jew, his brother.

And they obeyed, all the officials and all the people who had entered into the covenant that everyone would set free his slave, male or female, so that they would not be enslaved again. They obeyed and set them free. But afterward they turned around and took back the male and female slaves they had set free, and brought them into subjection as slaves.

The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I myself made a covenant with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying, ‘At the end of seven years each of you must set free the fellow Hebrew who has been sold to you and has served you six years; you must set him free from your service.’ But your fathers did not listen to me or incline their ears to me. You recently repented and did what was right in my eyes by proclaiming liberty, each to his neighbor, and you made a covenant before me in the house that is called by my name, but then you turned around and profaned my name when each of you took back his male and female slaves, whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your slaves.

“Therefore, thus says the Lord: You have not obeyed me by proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and to his neighbor; behold, I proclaim to you liberty to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine, declares the Lord. I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.” (Jeremiah 34:8-17)

Sheep and goats are “brother” animals, different yet closely related, hence the need for a discerning shepherd to separate them. The Passover lamb could be either a sheep or a goat (Exodus 12:5), but the Firstfruits sacrifice could only be a sheep, and after the bull sacrificed for the priesthood, the Atonement offerings could only be goats. This seems to indicate that the spiritual character (or office) of a man is indiscernible at birth and only becomes apparent as he matures. Before God, is he a sheep or a goat, a priest or a king?

It seems that sheep picture the priestly head, which is why Jesus has hair as white as wool (Firstfruits). Goats picture the Covenant body (Atonement), which is why Jacob wore goatskin on his arms. Government is a robe which sits upon one’s shoulders. So the sheep pictures the Church and the goat pictures the State. The sheep dies in the stead of a blameless priest for the high-handed sin of Adam in the Sanctuary, a sin committed in full knowledge of the truth. The goat dies in the stead of a faithful king who serves his people rather than lording over them like Pharaoh.

Jacob the shepherd was the priestly brother. Sheep’s wool is soft and was used for clothing. Esau the hunter was the kingly brother. Goat hair is course and was used for tents. Goats are “hairy ones” like Esau. Peter Leithart writes:

Esau is a “hairy man” (sa’iyr), something we learn only when Jacob dresses himself in goat hair to approach his father (Genesis 27:11, 23). Jacob becomes a hairy one, subbing in for his brother. The only other use of the word in Genesis is in 37:31, where it describes the “kid” killed to fool Jacob into thinking that Joseph has died. Both passages involve substitution, and both involve deception of a father.

Leviticus 16 is the great chapter about hairy goats. The word is used 14x in the chapter to describe the two goats used in the day of atonement rite. On the day of “coverings,” Israel is covered with goat skin to receive the blessing of the firstborn; on the day of coverings, a hairy kid is killed in place of the beloved son. [4]

I believe this is the background for the distinction between sheep and goats in Matthew 25. It is a division between the nations within God’s extended household (the oikoumene), those with a priestly character towards the “least” of Jesus’ brothers, and those who were tyrants and abused them as slaves.

By the time of this judgment, heredity had become meaningless. It did not matter whether a nation was Jewish or Greek. Descended from Esau, the Edomite Herods and all those who served them had aligned themselves with Rome. This judgment concerned not the circumcision of the flesh, but the circumcision of the heart. The nations (including Israel) who abused the true Jews were repeating the sins of Edom, the false brothers who not only refused to feed Israel in the wilderness, but also looted Jerusalem after its sacking and enslavement by Babylon.

Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that we have met: how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time. And the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and our fathers. And when we cried to the Lord, he heard our voice and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt. And here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King’s Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.” But Edom said to him, “You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against you.” And the people of Israel said to him, “We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.” But he said, “You shall not pass through.” And Edom came out against them with a large army and with a strong force. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him. (Numbers 20:14-21)

Because of the violence done to your brother Jacob,
shame shall cover you,
and you shall be cut off forever.

On the day that you stood aloof,
on the day that strangers carried off his wealth
and foreigners entered his gates
and cast lots for Jerusalem,
you were like one of them.

But do not gloat over the day of your brother
in the day of his misfortune;
do not rejoice over the people of Judah
in the day of their ruin;
do not boast
in the day of distress.

Do not enter the gate of my people
in the day of their calamity;
do not gloat over his disaster
in the day of his calamity;
do not loot his wealth
in the day of his calamity.

Do not stand at the crossroads
to cut off his fugitives;
do not hand over his survivors
in the day of distress.

For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations.
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
your deeds shall return on your own head.

(Obadiah 10-15)

The First Shall Be Last

All this background sits behind Matthew 25, which is not only near the end of the Bible, it speaks of the end of the Abrahamic Covenant, with its blessings and curses upon surrounding nations depending on their treatment of his children.

However, to make sense of where Jesus positions the separated oikoumene ”livestock” — the goats on His left and the sheep on His right — we must briefly trace it back even further, to the first brothers, Cain and Abel.

Due to Adam’s failure to submit to God as a priest, true kingdom was denied him. Blood was required to enjoy continued fellowship with God. Likewise, Cain usurped the ministry of his priestly brother. Cain, the firstborn, was disinherited by God. It is Christ who reveals to us that Abel, and all those like Him, would inherit the kingdom.

The Tabernacle is cruciform, and therefore humaniform. In this Man’s left hand is priesthood, the Table of bread and wine. In his right hand is kingdom, the Lampstand. Yet in Matthew 25, the priestly sheep are on the right, and the kingly goats are on the left. The first is last, and the last is first, an ironic take on the usurping of priesthood committed by Cain, who was supposed to make his offering after Abel. The “earth” is taken from the kings and given to the priestly, the meek. The inheritance is taken from the Esaus and given to the Jacobs. The “hairy ones” who refused to aid their suffering brothers are exiled forever.

There is a “chiastic” form to this brother-swap, which Jesus employs in the shape of Matthew 23:12:

This is precisely what we see in Genesis 48, when Jacob, whose eyes are failing, blesses Joseph’s sons:

And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. And the children that you fathered after them shall be yours. They shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance… And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn)… And Joseph said to his father, “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” (Genesis 48:5-6; 13-14; 18)

Matthew 25 is about tyrannical “kings” being butchered and given to sacrificial flames, and faithful servant-kings inheriting their houses and vineyards. As it was concerning the rich man and Lazarus within Israel, so would it be with the “ecumenical” nations over whom Christ, the First and the Last, was now enthroned.

In part 2, we will look at the Covenant structure of the passage and its allusions to the Ten Commandments.

_______________________________________
[1] Oikoumene means “inhabited world,” related to the extent of the realm or domain of a single code of law.
[2] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting On The Wall: A Commentary On The Book Of Daniel, 416-421.
[3] See When Judaism Jumped The Shark.
[4] Peter Leithart, Scapegoat.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

In a Land from which Cainites were being dispossessed, Israel herself would not only judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, but provide cities of refuge to the “firstborn” Levites as a gift.

The Avenger of Blood

Like Adam, Cain would not “bear” his sin. But unlike Adam, Cain was rejecting the covering of animal substitutes. As the “offspring” of the serpent (kinghood without priesthood), he only understood law as tyranny. There was no place for mercy (Atonement) because mercy required Covenant confession.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

“Just as Circumcision made impossible a global corruption,
so paedobaptism makes impossible a global Gospel.”

Part 1 here.

With so many young people leaving the Church, it is no wonder that there is a push to renew an understanding of biblical Covenant. Giving our children a profound sense of their “Covenant identity” is a crucial means of re-establishing the Covenant framework which has been neglected. Unfortunately, those pushing for these things are going about it in entirely the wrong way, because they are re-establishing the wrong Covenant.

Covenant Obligation

As Christian parents, we want our children to grow up to be like Abel, and not like Cain. The problem with using baptism to impart a “Covenant identity” is that this is not what baptism is for. Cain and Abel both had the same Covenant identity. Although their roles in worship differed, both were under a similar obligation when it came to faith. Abel was to offer blood to cover, once again, the sin in the Garden; Cain was then to offer the firstfruits of the Land. But Cain pushed in and made his offering first, apparently a refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of God. This was Pentecost before Firstfruits, kingdom before priesthood, a grasping of dominion without prior submission to God. It was the sin of Adam on a grander scale. [1]

Cain’s rebellion resulted in the establishment of a new identity, a pagan one. The curse upon him, though withheld, became a curse upon his children. The human race was divided into two tribes: a priestly clan which still recognised and worshiped God and a kingly order which did not. Intermarriage corrupted the priesthood and only one family remained submitted to God. The question is this: did those in the fortress of the Cainites no longer have any obligation to God? Of course they did, and eventually the entire civilization died in the Great Flood.

After the sin at Babel, humanity was headed for another flood, but God stepped in and divided the entire race in two through circumcision. A Covenant was established with Abraham and his offspring, with specific promises, that they might eventually be a blessing to the nations outside of this Covenant. Under Moses, the continuity of these promised blessings was bound through the Law, which meant that not only was Israel a “cultivated Land,” she would also be “pruned” from time to time, disciplined by God because of His great love for these children, His “firstborn.” Were the other nations under these Covenant obligations? Not directly. The nations surrounding Israel were blessed or cursed depending upon their treatment of Abraham’s offspring, but Israel was the focus. When Israel sinned, God also used these nations to curse and purify her. In all cases, this Covenant concerned only Abraham’s offspring until it was fulfilled. The Gentiles were under no obligation to either the Abrahamic Circumcision or the Mosaic Law.

Split Identities

Israel’s Covenant identity was not a removal of the obligation of the nations but an expansion of the office of Abel in worship, that is, the offering of representative blood. When it came to actual salvation, an Abrahamic “Covenant identity” simply meant that you were the first to hear. While this Covenant was in force, the Gospel always went first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Likewise, when judgment came, it came first upon Israel and then upon the nations. But both were still under obligation to God.

The Jew was to hear and believe, and through Israel, Gentiles were also to hear and believe. When it comes to salvation, this has always been the case. Israel’s “Covenant identity” in Abraham was a corporate liturgical office, not salvation itself. Hence, the doctrine of “paedofaith” is a wishful contrivance, an illegitimate hybrid of the promise to the believer and this obsolete Old Covenant sacrificial office. As we see in the prophets, God’s blessings and curses came upon all those who heard Israel’s testimony. In all cases, faith, which came by hearing, would result in works, and God always judged their faith (or lack of it) by their works. Through the testimony of Jonah, Nineveh was saved. Despite the testimony of Nahum, Nineveh was destroyed. If their works were faithful, then they were obviously converted. Regarding their offices, they remained Jews or Gentiles, Abels or Cains, brothers with different gifts but both in the service of God. One could be a believer or an unbeliever regardless of whether one was commissioned to offer blood, or to offer fruits from the ground (kingdom riches). The Old Covenant identity was with regard to ministry, not salvation, just as Abel kept sheep and Cain worked in the field. Both were required to repent and believe. Once the offerings were made, these fulfilled offices became meaningless. Once Christ was offered as better Abel, and the Herodian order judged as greater Cain, circumcision and uncircumcision became meaningless.

A Division of Flesh

The cultural separation of Jew and Gentile was for the purpose of preventing the kind of unity of culture which destroyed the original world in the flood and threatened to destroy the new world of Noah. At a global level, it split humanity irrevocably into Church and State. The usurping of priesthood by kingdom, the co-opting of the Church by the State, was impossible without the breaking down of the “wall of enmity,” circumcision and the Law, the Covenant obligations of the Jews. Though similar sins were committed within the bounds of the circumcision, a global corruption was made impossible through the curses of the Law. The Law put a hedge around the ministry of Abel (Genesis 4), and prevented the “Cainites” from intermarrying with the “Sethites” (Genesis 6) or uniting to build a new Babel. Thus, the identity conferred in circumcision was a Covenant within a Covenant, Abrahamites as a priestly people within a Noahic world, Abels among Cains, sheep among wolves. When Israel’s priests, kings and people behaved like Cainites, God gave them over to the real Cainites for discipline and eventual purging. Just as animals died on Israel’s behalf, so Israel was judged on the world’s behalf. Israel would always die as the firstborn, a first fruits of blood separated from the rest of the world. But Israel, unlike the other nations, would also rise from the dead.

The Covenant identity of Israel, conferred due to the personal faith of Abraham, was a sacrificial obligation which was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the sacrificial flesh of Israel, offered in faith on behalf of all nations. The Jewish identity, the offering of the blood of the firstborn, finally ascended to heaven in Christ. True priesthood was finally accomplished and true kingdom could come, a dominion sourced in submission to God and priestly service. The end of Circumcision came because the Abelic ministry was completed in Christ. The end of the Temple avenged not only the blood of Christ but also the blood of Abel. The end of the Jewish identity necessarily ended the Gentile identity, as the submersion of the Land makes the demarcation of “sea” meaningless. All the kingdoms of the world, offered to Jesus at the hand of Satan, are now His at the hand of the Father.

Now that this division of offices is gone, the only Covenant identity which remains is the one common to all men, as it was common to both Cain and Abel, the obligation to repent and trust God. The New Covenant did not introduce a souped-up Abrahamic identity, a new division of fleshly offices. It fulfilled and exalted one which already existed: repentance and faith, something which was always available to both Jew and Gentile, who in the larger picture were under the same Covenant in Noah. This fact was the basis for the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (See A Change Of The Law).

Since the ministry of shedding blood is now fulfilled, there is no such “Covenant-within-a-Covenant” identity in existence. With the Old Covenant completed, there is no “Covenant identity” outside of the call to repent and believe. Since the world is no longer divided into the offices of Jew and Gentile, there is no need to signify separate obligations. Logically, baptism cannot confer a Covenant obligation, because we are all under the New Covenant obligation to repent and believe. Thus, baptism can neither make a “Covenant child,” nor confer salvation in any sense upon an infant.

A Global Covenant

Those who believe that baptism, whether of an infant, a child or an adult, puts that person “into Covenant with God” have not understood what makes the New Covenant new. Circumcision marked out a cultural “office,” the shedding of blood, an obligation which has now been fulfilled in Christ. Baptism marks out a personal response, the answer of a good conscience towards God, which has also now been fulfilled in Christ. But these are not the same. One is death, and one is resurrection. One is an objective execution, the other a subjective profession.

The idea that baptism puts somebody “into Covenant with God” in the way that circumcision put Abraham’s seed into Covenant with God, not only limits the scope of its obligation to the confines of the Church, it leads to the mistaken belief that evangelism is about unbelievers joining the Covenant with its obligations rather than responding to the Gospel because they are already condemned. Evangelism is not an extension of the New Covenant obligation across the world, as though the nations were joining some sort of renovated Old Covenant Israel. God forbid. Evangelism is for the purpose of a response to that obligation, a response which confers complete fulfillment of those obligations on one’s behalf by Christ.

So, how do we give our children a “New Covenant identity”? By teaching them of their “Adamic” obligation to Jesus, one which they possess simply by being born, and that this “death-note” was fulfilled by Christ. They are not born Christians, but neither are they born pagans, because the Gospel sees to it that the world is no longer divided in such a way. It challenges every identity by proclaiming the one common to all.

Using baptism to signify some kind of legal obligation between a child and God is an unwitting testimony that Christ has not come in the flesh, that the ministry of bloodshed is not complete, that the blood of Abel has not been avenged. It makes the Church a wall of flesh between God and the nations rather than a torn veil, a door open to the rebel in us all.

Paedobaptism gives to the world a false picture of both the work of Jesus and the prophetic office of each Christian, the profession of one’s faith. Paedobaptism puts the unbeliever outside the obligations of the New Covenant, which are repentance and faith. It basically tells the world to go and build a city, because God is concerned only with His “Covenant people,” and has not given all the kingdoms of the world to His Son. Thus, paedobaptism not only confers upon infants membership in a Covenant which no longer exists, and thus gives them a false identity by treating repentance and faith as though it were an inherited “office” like that of the Jew, it makes the Church a closed veil between the obligation of all people and the throne of Jesus, the Open Door who Himself is the New Covenant.

There is no “identity” which is outside of the New Covenant, and this is the basis for evangelism. Just as Circumcision made impossible a global corruption, so paedobaptism makes impossible a global Gospel.

NEXT POST: Raising Canaan

___________________________________________
[1] I believe that if Cain had not killed Abel, a third son would have been the Prophet, rather than Seth, a replacement priest. This incomplete architecture was fulfilled in the three sons of Noah. See The Last Sin.

My Federal Vision friends believe baptism is an important subject, from both theological and pastoral points of view. I agree, but for me it is also an issue of aesthetics. The Bible has a wonderfully consistent internal logic, and paedobaptism crunches the gears at every turn.

Peter Leithart just posted something concerning baptism, and it’s worth answering, not only “because somebody on the internet is wrong,” but also because it is an issue I’ve just finished dealing with in The Shape of Galatians. It should be noted that Trinity House is hosting some lectures on sacraments by a baptist, so Dr Leithart and his colleagues have a spirit that should be imitated by theologians everywhere. My own posts here are always bait in the hope of a bite, a friendly disputatio, so don’t take them the wrong way. If a friend has soup on his tie, or wax in his ear, or a fertility rite in his sacrament, what sort of friend isn’t going to point it out!?

Dr Leithart writes:

Paul calls circumcision a “seal of righteousness” in Romans 4:11, and that same phrase has historically been applied to baptism.

But what does it mean to be a “seal of righteousness”? A seal (Greek sphragis) is an identifying mark. The word is used to describe brands on animals, identifying tattoos on slaves, signs that identify a man’s regiment in the military. To be sealed is to be identified in some way.

A “seal of righteousness,” it would seem, is a mark that identified the one sealed as “righteous.” That’s true for Abraham: He trusted Yahweh’s promise, Yahweh counted it for righteousness and thus considered Abraham to be righteous, and the seal of circumcision imposed that status on Abraham’s flesh. Abraham would have explained his circumcision as a seal that Yahweh considered him righteous.

But then that same seal is applied to the infant Isaac, and then many other infants, on the eighth day. It’s still a “seal of righteousness.” Changing Isaac’s nappies, Sarah could have seen Isaac’s circumcision and thought, “Yahweh sealed my little son as a righteous one! Praise to Yahweh!”

When we apply this logic to baptism, as paedobaptists are wont to do, what are we to conclude? Is baptism a “seal of righteousness,” also for our children?

Firstly, what does Paul actually say in Romans 4? Abraham became the father of a priestly nation because he believed. He believed first, and then received the Circumcision. The question here is this: if Abraham and the men in his household believed before they were circumcised, why wasn’t Isaac required to believe first? Because Abraham was sealed as righteous, and through him all Israel were given promises. It says nothing about Isaac being sealed as righteous. He was the fulfillment of the promise.

Notice that Dr Leithart doesn’t mention males, but infants. That’s the classic bait-and-switch. Circumcision wasn’t about child rearing but child bearing, about a physical seed. Yes, Sarah would have praised God every time she changed Isaac’s nappy. She would also have praised God every time Abraham was naked before her. Circumcision was a reminder of their previous barrenness, which was removed because Abraham believed God. Both the birth and circumcision of Isaac were a sign of Abraham’s righteousness, and nobody else’s.

So, why were Abraham and Sarah barren in the first place? Because they were a new Adam and Eve, the beginning of an “Edenic” nation which would carry the curse for all nations. Abraham plants trees and buries Sarah in a tree-circled grove. Thus, Circumcision was about the Land and the womb, the firstfruits and the firstborn. It was about cutting off Cain and cutting off Canaan. It was inherently Edenic, because the original promises were given to Adam and then distributed by Noah.

God promised fertility to Adam, constructed Eve, and then qualified Adam to receive that fertility as a gift. The Land and the womb would not be opened until Adam was qualified. He sinned, but the shedding of blood allowed God to bless him still with a fertility in Land and womb that was tempered, not cut off, by a curse. Circumcision was likewise a shedding of blood that would allow God to give a faithful Man a fruitful Land and a fruitful womb. But things had progressed, because although death was mitigated in Eden, human blood was still shed. The mitigating blood in Circumcision was now human blood. In a sense, every male Israelite was cut off as an Abel that he might not be a Cain. Isaac himself was a son offered as an ascension sacrifice. He was symbolically slain as a Cain and “born again by faith” as an Abel, hence the constant battle for Covenant Succession between firstborn and secondborn sons, right up to Christ and the Herods, upon whom all the righteous blood from Abel would be avenged.

Because of his faith, righteousness was counted to Abraham. Working through Galatians I noticed a structural correspondence between Paul’s reference to this counting, and the counting of the sons of Israel. The name of the book Numbers refers to the two censuses which bookend it, the generation which came out of Egypt (“my firstborn son”) but died in the wilderness, and the new uncircumcised generation which took possession of the Land. The children of Israel are numbered so many times it gets boring. But the point is that they are counted. As Dr Leithart has himself noted, Revelation 7 alludes to Numbers when it counts out the 144,000, the “firstfruits” of the Land, the first Jews who believed the Gospel. But notice that the Gentile believers are not counted. They are count-less, like the stars in the sky or the sand of the seashore. To be “counted” is to be a sacrifice, an ascension offering like Isaac. The counting of righteousness to Abraham resulted in the counting of sons and their inheritance in the Land. Israel’s physical and agricultural fertility were evidence of the faith of Abraham in the promises of God.

But the third promise was this countless blessing to all nations. The nations, generally speaking, were never under such a curse of barrenness. Their offspring were always countless, and their swarming hordes were held back by God when Israel was faithful, and brought by God upon Israel in a “flood” of judgment when faithless. And the famines also seem linked to the presence of Abraham and his sons. Indeed, it was the very fruitfulness of the nations (in both Land and womb) which deceived Israel into worshiping their gods of fertility, the Baals. Just as it was in the Garden, Molech was simply another dragon hijacking the offspring of the woman with an offer of certain food. [1]

So, what kind of sons is Paul talking about when he refers to Gentiles who have Abraham as their father? Obviously, it is those who believed.

Paedobaptists take this faith as “household by household” to tie it once again to offspring, but for Gentiles it was never about offspring, or the Land, which were always tied together, just as Abel and the ground were tied together. This question is answered by taking note of the nature of this great blessing for all nations. Once again, it takes us back to Genesis. Just as the Land and womb were opened by the mitigation of death, so also the curse upon Land and womb was swallowed up in the defeat of death. The resurrection of Christ made Circumcision, the Jew-Gentile distinction, redundant. [2] This is why the writer of Hebrews works his way from slavery to death (World), to the children of Abraham (Land and womb), to Adam’s temptation (Garden), in Hebrews 2:14-18. Jesus was a better Adam, then a better Abel, and then a better “son of God,” [3] a priest king after the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood of all nations:

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

So, the blessing upon the Gentiles was not a fertility which they already possessed. It was the removal of the fear of death. Israel bore their barrenness as a substitute, and then Jesus, as Israel, bore their death as well. The significance of the womb of Sarah and the tomb of Sarah were united in Christ. The very Land itself shook with birth pangs at His resurrection, and again just before the first resurrection, as Jesus predicted. There was never any need for a sign upon infants. There was a sign upon all Abrahamic males as  Cains who received God’s mercy and subsequently enjoyed the restoration of the fruit of the Land.

Now that the seed had come, and the old Land had “given birth,” a new sign was required, a sign which pictured a new Land rising from the abyss, a heavenly country. The New Covenant, and its sign, are not about the fertility of Christian wombs but about the fertility of Christian tombs. This is not hard to understand.

Baptism has nothing to do with physical fertility, but that is where the baptismal regeneration of the Federal Cision, er, Vision, takes us. A Federal Vision friend recently celebrated the birth of another child, and commented that this birth was another victory against Satan. That floored me, but this is surely the next logical step. The second and third generations of the Federal Vision are not going to be scared to claim the crazy things that the first generation would be reluctant to say out loud.

To claim that a baptized infant is “righteous” is not only to misunderstand and misrepresent baptism (and thus misrepresent the Gospel itself) but to misunderstand and misrepresent Circumcision as well.

_____________________________________
[1] See “Kids in the Kitchen: Passover in the Motherland” in God’s Kitchen: Theology You Can Eat & Drink.
[2] The New Covenant didn’t institute a refurbished distinction concerning offspring and territory, which is why paedobaptism historically has always been perverted into religious nationalism, the “Cainite” kingdom of the Herods, and indeed the very same offer which Satan made to Jesus in the wilderness. The reason this will always occur is because it is inherent in the “tribal”nature of the rite.
[3] Genesis 6 concerns the priestly line of Seth intermarrying with the godless, autonomous Cainite kingdom, which brought about the end of all flesh.

God loves His architecture. The first chapter of the Bible is architecture. The books of Moses and the book of Revelation are filled with architecture, and the same floorplan underlies every book in between. Most Christians don’t understand the Bible’s architecture and modern Christians not only do not understand it, they do not care for it. But God loves His architecture. To love the Bible one must love its architecture. To understand the Bible, one must let the architecture inform one’s understanding.

Regarding the “architectural” relationship between the family and the Church, Peter Leithart writes:

Christian political thought has historically gotten off on the wrong foot through misinterpretation of Genesis 1-2. Adam and Eve are taken as “family,” and hence the family becomes a “natural” institution. Families band together and soon there are cities and kingdoms, also natural institutions.

Augustine says this, and so, following him, does Isidore. And everyone of course follows Augustine and Isidore.

The church comes later, a top layer on nature, the supernatural society.

But the garden is not “home” but sanctuary; Adam and Eve are not “family” but worshiping community, created and placed in the place of God’s presence and offered the fruit of the tree of life.

There is no more natural society than the church.

Any discussion of the nature of Church, family and state must be founded upon the architecture which informs all Scripture. These three institutions correspond to the Garden, Land and World, a three-level “Creational” Tabernacle. I agree with most of what Dr Leithart says above, but the floorplan of the primeval world leads us in reality to a different conclusion than the one he reaches.

Dr Leithart leaves out Genesis 3, which is a grand mistake. Genesis 1 moves from the Creation of the World to the filling of the Land. Genesis 2 takes Adam from the Land to the Garden. Genesis 3 concerns Adam’s Ethical qualification. To take possession of the promised Land and the World, he must first take dominion of the Garden. Dr Leithart knows the architecture, but his claim that the Church is “natural” is misinformed by his erroneous view of baptism. Adam’s life did not begin in the Garden but in the Land. He was “lifted up” into the Garden as the initial Firstfruits. In the Garden, he would receive a “super-nature,” that is, an office. He would be enthroned over the animals officially, then divided, and given the role of protecting and leading his wife.

Dr Leithart also leaves out Genesis 4 and 5, which are crucial for understanding the complete architecture. Why is this? Because Genesis 1-5 give us the complete Covenant structure.

The action moves from the natural gifts (Being) to a delegated office (Knowing) and the beginning of rule (Doing). These are Physical, Social and Ethical. But from the Ethical we move back out into the Social and Physical as ministers of the Spirit. In Genesis 3, the promised blessings upon the Land and womb are limited, but not withheld, by curses. Instead of holding a “super-natural” office, a robe from heaven covering the body, Adam’s clothing is earthly. The events in the Garden are not natural at all. They took nature and cut it into pieces. Like Adam’s body, the family, the corporate body, was intended to be nature clothed in “super” nature, Spirit-filled and covered in righteousness, held together by a greater bond, based upon faithfulness in the Garden. Instead, it remained natural. Failure to shed blood in the Garden led to bloodshed in the Land. This is “family” allowed to remain natural because the Church remains natural.

This is where the wheels fall off Dr Leithart’s conclusion. His ecclesiology is natural with a pretense of the supernatural. He believes that baptism is somehow capable of infusing the natural with the Spirit, rather than cutting it up with the Word, placing it on the Altar, incinerating it, and transforming it into something “beyond death.” A Christian baby is thus a baby Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is Cainite thinking, because despite its high view of the Garden, it actually exalts the Land over the Garden. It seizes the promises without reference to the Ethical requirements of God.

There were no children in the Sanctuary. It was the children who were at stake in the Sanctuary. [1] The path from World to Land to Garden and back out again is the path of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (and the shape of the book of Leviticus). [2] He temporarily laid aside his glory for the sake of the nations that he might take it up again in a greater way, with a greater office, a greater Body. The entire purpose of Adam’s qualification was to make him a mediator for his children before God (as we see in the case of Job). The Garden was never a “natural” place in that sense, and neither is it today. It is the Most Holy Place, the place of death and resurrection. This is why circumcision was all about the removal of the curse upon the Land and the womb. It had to do with the promises in Genesis 2 which were forfeited in Genesis 3. Baptism is about Sanctuary access, which is why the coming of Baptism entailed the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah being avenged upon the Land. This is why the fivefold pattern above can be overlaid perfectly upon the events of the first century, with the Ascension of Christ as a new Hierarchy (AD30), and the first resurrection, the Ascension of the Firstfruits Church, at Sanctions (AD70). The Church is indeed central, as Dr Leithart observes, but it is by no means “natural.” The Church is where the natural, “all flesh,” dies. The natural ties that bind us (blood) are not “sacralized” and exalted in the Garden. It is the place where Adam and Eve are qualified for the promise of Land and offspring. Land and offspring are not welcome in the Garden, only their representatives.

The Bible’s teaching on baptism cannot be separated from its architecture. Paedobaptism and baptismal regeneration are an erroneous paradigm which conflate the natural with the supernatural. The Bible never puts these together but “in series,” as in the process of sacrifice, given to us to teach us about death and resurrection. Any house which confuses circumcision with baptism calls Cain a Christian because he was “born” a Christian. It is office without qualification. The sword will never depart from such a house. Presbyterians will continue to cut each other to ribbons, and condemn and alienate baptized unbelievers as apostates, because this problem cannot be solved without submission to biblical baptism.

The church indeed comes later, a top layer on nature, the supernatural society. Baptism is for those qualified to be Shepherd-Kings and Queens. Dr Leithart’s baptism is not for mature sword-bearers, the guardians, but for the children under the sword, the guarded. He gets off on the right foot but then wanders into the wilderness by exalting family in a more subtle way.

“Why is the Lord bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?” (Numbers 14:3)

___________________________________
[1] Jesus’ words concerning the “little ones” are misunderstood when viewed with paedobaptistic expectations. His point is that He is a better king than Herod, being the true Shepherd, the Priest-King. Baptism is not for the infants but for the ones who protect and lead them, the ones who “put on Christ” as a robe. To claim otherwise is to do violence to the architecture of the Bible and the world.
[2] See Leviticus As Literature.

ART: Léon Spilliaert, White Robes, 1904

The Nephilim (“great” or “amazing”) were the first “mighty men” of the Bible. They were the result of the intermarriage between the priestly sons of Seth and the rebellious Cainite kings. The text gives us a split genealogy after the murder of Abel, priests serving God outside the garden, and Cain’s false kingdom (Cain went and built a “fortress” to protect himself). So, humanity was divided into two camps: those who served God as their king and those who rebelled against Him.

The sin of the sons “of God” (God was their authority) was marrying daughters “of men” (man as authority), and we know this is what it is talking about because it happens over and over throughout Bible history. These women were unconverted. Marrying such women was forbidden in the Mosaic Law, especially for kings. This sin eventually brought about Solomon’s apostasy, which destroyed Israel under a Babylonian “flood.” His failure led to a splitting of the kingdom, and Omri in the northern kingdom also attempted to co-opt Judah through intermarriage. Ezra and Nehemiah deal with such intermarriage as well. Unconverted women and their children were to be expelled, to save Israel from another judgment.

Finally, Jesus said that His generation would soon be destroyed for such “marrying and giving in marriage,” as it was in the days of Noah. In the first century, the compromisers were the “rulers of the Land,” the Herods and their high priesthood, through their dependance on the state power of Rome. Rather than being an obedient priesthood, humbling themselves and being exalted by God, they exalted themselves and were finally abased.

There is nothing wrong with intermarriage as long as the move is towards God. God loves holy hybrids (just look at some of His angels!) Rahab and Ruth are prime examples. In the first century, this holy intermarriage was the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, pictured for many centuries in the Feast of Booths. They too were united, but by the Spirit through priestly obedience. This is true kingdom. Once united, nothing would be withheld from them.

But why were these men in Genesis 6 called “mighty,” the supervillains of the day?

James Jordan has a must-read article on this, aligning the intermarriage with events in our own day. [1] In summary, what he calls “the Enoch factor” is the habit of the unrighteous initially achieving more, culturally-speaking, than the righteous, because they are willing to resort to slavery and robbery (like Pharaoh, and Rehoboam). But this kind of kingdom is short-lived. It springs up quickly but fades because it has no true integrity. Paganism, left to itself, is unsustainable. The only way paganism can continue is by co-opting the strength and integrity of a righteous culture. This is exactly what has happened in western culture. This is what Jordan calls the “Nephilim factor.” The sanctimonious atheism we see today has no moral capital of its own. It has to borrow, or steal, everything from Christianity, including science, and then relabel this cultural integrity as the product of human reason. What results is a culture of great strength and technical ability, all the blessings of God co-opted, stolen by a corporate Adam. [2]

The serpent offered Adam a kingdom without priestly obedience first. “You shall be like God.” The Nephilim were simply a race of men who were “like god” (Genesis 3:4-5) in a bad way — “mighty men.” (Notice that David and Boaz were also “mighty men,” but in a good way.) The Nephilim were the fulfilment of this satanic offer, a race of Cains, a sin that was now full grown (as James writes to first century Jews) and ripe for judgment.

So forget the angels, and the aliens. It was the integrity of the Church co-opted and corrupted by a secular state with Messianic pretensions. [3]

_____________________________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, The Case Against Western Civilization.
[2] See also How To Be Really Evil.
[3] If the West Wing TV series was renamed “The Messiah Complex,” it would suddenly become the most brilliant satire ever.

An excerpt from Bible Matrix III:

Just as Esau was the line of Cain rolled into one, so Jacob was a true son of God. In fact, being blameless as Noah was, the Lord granted him a vision of the true Gate of God, a tower reaching to heaven.

In Bible Matrix, we mentioned the significance of Jacob’s “ziggurat” vision as it relates to the mountain of God. [1] Jacob was laid out on the ground like Adam. His slumber brings a “Bridal” vision.

He was also a priestly Tabernacle in the wilderness. Jacob’s head rested upon a horizontal (dead) stone. He “ascended” and received a vision of the house he would build. The pillar he erected was a model of what he had seen, a Head lifted up and given a triune Body, anointed as a “living” stone.

Prostration and uprightness are key factors here. The “elevation” occurs firstly in Jacob’s head, then in his body. On either side of this (chiastically), Jacob chooses one of the stones (Delegation) and then sets it up (Vindication). [2]

The structure of events also underlines that Israel’s kinghood would be founded upon the priestly obedience of the faithful son. Unlike Cain, Jacob made God his refuge, so God would make Jacob a tent, a household and a city, which we see prefigured in the life of Joseph.

(Genesis 28:10-22)

______________________________________
[1] Bible Matrix, p. 101. For a full explanation of the significance of the architecture of Jacob’s dream, see James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes, pp. 87-89.
[2] This footnote won’t be in the book, but even here there is evidence for credobaptism. The New Testament uses an identical structure to contrast circumcision with baptism. Baptism is only for the upright, the blameless in Christ, those who have been invested with Jesus’ triune office as His robed Body. There is also support here for the “baptistic” mode of baptism: prostration and then uprightness. Credobaptism is built into the warp and woof of the Bible, in every passage, at every level.

I am convinced, quite contrary to a great deal of pious wisdom on the subject, that the possession of certain gifts, even in abundance, is not necessarily a sign that one will have the opportunity to employ them in this life, or the blessing of God in their attempted use. This is because I, and many others I know, have certain powers whose use I firmly believe we have been forbidden—which must apparently remain latent indefinitely, at least in this life. There are other gifts I regard as far smaller and less important I have been forced to exercise, much to my irritation and chagrin, consistently. It would appear, if not from our lives, then those of the martyrs, that from a strictly pragmatic point of view God is a great waster of his best resources.

We don’t, however, have access to the Grand Scheme of Things, don’t know precisely what we’ve been made for, don’t know what God values most in us, or what we shall become in glory. We are like Jane Studdock, who wanted to be admired and valued for her intellect, but finally had to come to grips with the fact that those whose valuations she really cared about in the end valued her for other qualities. In evaluating our own gifts and callings we need to take this consideration into proper account. While lack of aptitude provides adequate reason to forego some ambitions (a pig gains no glory from the attempt to fly), its possession, alas, does not necessarily demand its exercise–although, of course, it might.

(S. M. Hutchens, Touchstone, Nov. 10, 2004)

In a Bible study many years ago, a friend brought our attention to the fact that it was Cain’s line that produced all the innovators: tentmaking, metalwork and music. Being young and ignorant, the best reason we could come up with was that God’s people often aren’t very talented.

Of course, I now know that God keeps the best until the end. Babel is always built in a hurry but Jerusalem takes time (James Jordan). Sunflowers don’t last but oak trees do.

There is also a liturgical reason why Cain’s line received all the gifts. Pentecost brings gifts. Gifts are kingly and prophetic. The priestly line was not made of innovators. By design, they were servants of God. Of course, when Israel matures, as servant kings, she receives gifts, but their use is still priestly in a sense — church architecture, great literature, church music, technology, etc. Before Christ, glory belonged to the pagans. Since Christ, His Church has been the only source of innovation. It is the “nursery of culture” (Jordan again).

Now, to my point. It also seems that in the Covenantal process of maturity, our “latent” gifts must go on the altar for purification. And I suppose some of them don’t come out of the fire. The gifts with which we are born are natural, raw. The natural man is incredibly gifted, but the natural is simply raw material. It requires cutting.

Just like the sons of Cain, those gifts are worthless to God until He gets His “gift” — a firstfruits. Then He can pour out lasting glory. In the big picture, Jesus is that great gift, and the centre of the glory poured out is His Church.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:4-6)

See also The Significance of Jabal and Jubal.

“What is the meaning of ”one is taken and the other left’? This is commonly thought to refer to the rapture — one taken up into heaven, and the other left on earth to kick himself for not praying the sinner’s prayer when he had a chance. On the bright side, there will be a lot of free, unmanned cars available” (Heaven Misplaced, p. 104).

Matthew 24 is a prediction of the Covenant curses falling upon Judah for the last time. One being taken and the other left has to do with displacement. Titus enslaved the best Jews and took them in ships to Egypt.

“And the Lord will take you back to Egypt in ships, by the way of which I said to you, ‘You shall never see it again.’ And there you shall be offered for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.” (Deuteronomy 28:68)

It’s one thing to get the historical fulfilment correct, but there’s a whole lot more going on here. In His speech, as the fulfilment of Israel, Jesus is working through the Bible Matrix, a combination of the Creation week, the weekly and annual Feasts, and the process of Dominion. This means that He is using examples of all the previous historical Covenant structures to make His point. The Covenant cycle has snowballed through history and picked up a lot of events on its way.

At this point, He’s using Atonement symbols (Covenant Sanctions). So (if you have a copy of Bible Matrix) you can see how He’s linking many previous Sanctions events together to describe the oncoming storm. [1] Visually, it looks like this:

Atonement concerns the distribution of the Covenant blessing and the Covenant curse. It is a two-edged sword, vengeance and redemption, two goats. Jesus’ words looked forward, but they also looked backwards in time. Based on that, what can we see beyond the (now) historical fulfilment?

Who were the first two men working in the field? One slew the other, but only the slain one was left behind. The other was exiled as the second goat. The blood of Abel would finally be avenged — and on that generation.

Then we have two women grinding at the mill. This is often a euphemism for sex (as is the threshingfloor – Pentecost. At the first Pentecost, Israel committed Covenant harlotry.). The question is, who is the true Bride? Lamech failed to decide. Jesus, like Solomon, wasn’t going to fail to pick the true mother.

We have a choosing of the true Adam (working the Land) and a choosing of the true Eve (the childbearer), head and body, the two approaches of the High Priest on the Day of Coverings. God was coming to judged the Temple, and, as in Eden, there was nowhere to hide.

It’s architectural, too. Adam is outside the house, Eve is inside. All these types are wrapped up in Jacob and Esau. Esau took two wives (“daughters of men”) and he worked outside. Jacob, who did not despise the Covenant, was inside the tent: Esau the bloody bronze altar and Jacob the fragrant golden altar, who had to wear goat skin to smell like… the field.

Matthew 24 is about the end of Herodian, that is, Idumean (Edomite), worship. It was the end of Cain, the end of Lamech, and the end of Esau. Jesus would return as the True Husband to single out the true mother and the true brothers.

Structure and architecture aren’t everything. But for Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and their audiences, they were the first thing to be aware of not only when composing a text but when hearing a text. Sadly, often it’s the last thing we look at, so we have trouble figuring out what room we’re in and whether something is a bed or a table.

It’s the reason many speeches are so long. The prophet is building a house. Here, Jesus is tearing it down.

_____________________________________
[1] Another example discussed elsewhere on here is Jesus’ reference to vultures gathering. It is an ironic take on the Feast of Booths (aka Ingathering). Because Israel would not put food on the table for the nations, she would be the food on the table. The Gentiles would be unclean scavengers instead of footwashed guests.)