Ignorance of the Bible’s very consistent architecture has led to the assembly of many well-meaning but errant doctrinal constructs over the centuries. With reference to it, however, the conflicts are made plain. Our own towers to heaven, however historic they might be, and however cherished, must be torn down.

Just as the “tabernacling” of God in human flesh established a new temple, so the architecture of God serves as the measure for the edifices of man in every sphere. As the Bible repeatedly shows, the city of God will only be built according to the blueprint from heaven, the one given upon the mountain. Anything else will be revealed by fire as mud bricks and straw, a house built on sand, or wood, hay and stubble.

Architecture as Process

The Bible’s sacred architecture is not “solid state.” Not only does it become more and more glorious as the story progresses, from garden to tent, from temple to city, from nature to culture, the elements of the building themselves constitute a process of maturity, recapitulating the pattern of “forming and filling” established in Genesis 1.¹For examples, see Revelation – Cycle 2 Just as that pattern underlies the shape of Genesis 2 — the social architecture established in Adam and Eve²See Covenant Structure in Genesis 2 — so it also underlies the dictation and construction of the Tabernacle in the latter part of the book of Exodus. These chapters are the worst kind of tedium unless we are willing to think visually, or architecturally. If, after careful and repeated readings of the book of Genesis, we have the “heavenly pattern” hidden in our hearts, the details of the tent of God are not a boring list but a tour of the gallery of grace, an architectural representation of the work of God in every sphere, from the creation of the world down to the heart of the humblest saint. Although these sequences are far more complex, we can begin to sing along because we already know the tune.³See The Shape of Exodus 25-31

Since all God’s works are “musical” in that sense, we should not be surprised to find the same architecture in biblical worship. Jeff Meyers writes:

Jesus taught us to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). He thereby established heaven as the pattern for what is done on earth. (Actually, this pattern is symbolized in many places in the Old Testament, beginning in Genesis 1:1-2.) This is especially the case with regard to the church’s worship. Surely the manner in which worship is conducted in heaven functions as a model for the church on earth. When the Apostle John was privileged to observe heavenly worship, as he records for us in the Revelation, he saw an orderly, formal service performed by angels, living beings, and the twenty-four elders (the precise identity of each of these beings is not our concern here). They repeated various rituals and ritual responses (Rev. 4:9-11). They alternated responses antiphonally (Rev. 5:11-14). They sang hymns in unison (Rev. 5:9). They fell down together (no doubt, a prearranged liturgical action), and they jointly recited prayers of praise and thanksgiving that must have been pre-composed and memorized. How else would they have all prayed (or sung) simultaneously?⁴Jeffrey J. Meyers, The Lord’s Service: Worship at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, 19, a condensed version of The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship.

Meyers notes that, just like the Creation week, and indeed like any good music, the liturgy of worship “moves from tension to rest, from mourning to joy.” What began as “formless and void” becomes “formed and filled.” Our weekly worship is thus a celebration of the new creation established in the death, resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Christ. The action moves from bloodshed on the earth to rule over the nations. This process is called “Covenant Renewal Worship” because it follows the pattern of all biblical Covenants.

The process begins with the authority of God, purifies His people, then sends them as representatives into the world. This is the Above, Beside, Below architecture found in the Ten Commandments.⁶See God-In-A-Box  The threefold Trinity becomes fivefold by Covenant and then sevenfold in history. The pattern instilled in us in the house of God is then recapitulated in our own houses, tribes, cities and nations.

But this process of the Spirit “coming down” always follows the ascension offering, the sacrifice “going up.”⁷For more discussion on the meaning of the ascension offering, see The First Ascension. The three-level “ziggurat” described in Exodus 20:4 and Philippians 2:10 is turned upside down in the ministry of Christ.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything…

that is in heaven above,
(Step 3: Jesus’ ascension – Authority to Rule: GOVERNMENT)
^
or that is in the [land] beneath,
(Step 2: Jesus’ transfiguration – Authority to Die: SACRAMENT)
^
or that is in the water under the [land].”
(Step 1: Jesus’ baptism – Authority to Testify: WORD)⁸For more discussion, see Jesus’ Three Ascensions

Jesus sent His Spirit only after He ascended into heaven as the ultimate sacrifice. Man must be represented in heaven before he can be commissioned to represent God on earth. This is why Adam was put through a process of ethical qualification. His submission to the word-sword of heaven would qualify him to be its bearer on earth.⁹For more discussion, see “The Spirit of Adam” and “The Meekest Man” in Inquiétude: Essays for a People without Eyes. Just as there was tension and rest in the testing and enthronement of Christ (Below, Beside, Above), so there is now tension and rest is the conquest of the nations by the Gospel (Above, Beside, Below). ¹⁰Interestingly, although the flow of divine authority in the fivefold Covenant is Above, Beside, Below, the sevenfold process includes both an ascent and a descent. God always works in fractals.

Architecture as Drama

Now, as a visual thinker, some things are obvious to me that are not obvious to other people. Thinking visually not only allows one to think spatially or architecturally (how things are placed in a given space), it then allows you to make some observations concerning the spatial “relationships” between those things. In dramatic terminology, this placement of people is referred to as “blocking.” Eric Sean McGiven writes:

Blocking is the positioning and movement of the characters to tell the story in visual terms. This placement can suggest the attitudes of the characters toward one another so the story situation is conveyed to the audience with or without dialogue. It makes the audience understand, at times contrary to the dialogue, the inner meaning existing within and between characters.

Blocking should make the dramatic or comedic purpose of the scene so clearly apparent to the viewer that even a deaf man could understand it. For example, silent films were almost all physical behavior. A whole generation grew up understanding and enjoying these films.

The visual story reflects the moment to moment failure or success of each character’s struggle toward their objective, as well as the intensity (commitment) and focus (direction) of their emotions. Blocking is thus the accumulation of several components: the dramatic relationship, the character’s wants, what he feels, what stands in the way, and how is the conflict presently resolving. Now when I say winning or failing, I don’t mean whether the character achieves their end goal, but whether they are succeeding or failing at specific moments along the way.

Blocking, is therefore, a comparative portrayal of strong and weak movements, and relative positions. This means that certain body positions; stage areas, planes, and levels along with character movements have definite values. They inject meaning into the picture and the telling of the story.

For instance, a strong movement of a figure is one rising from a chair, straightening up, placing weight on the forward foot, raising the arm, or walking forward. A weak movement, on the other hand, is stepping backward, slouching, placing the weight on the rear foot, sitting down, lowering the arm, walking backward, or turning around and walking away from a figure or object.

We could also define, in general, whether physical behavior is strong or weak, whether it signifies a winning attitude or one of struggle or failure.¹¹Eric Sean McGiven, Blocking and Movement.

The first point that should be made here is the importance of physical posture in liturgy. The saints kneel or prostrate themselves to confess sins because we are slain as living sacrifices. The saints stand to sing and pray because these are priestly acts of service, and servants stand. The saints hear the word and receive communion seated because we are priest-kings, friends of God. Covenant renewal worship (or whatever you choose to call it) purifies our hearts and leads to the saints walking among the nations as prophets.

Liturgy, under the Old Covenant and the New, is sacred drama. People used to go to church to absorb patterns for life. Now, sadly, they watch TV and movies to learn how to live, and entertainment rather than the Bible informs the pattern of modern worship as it does the method of modern Bible teaching. It is little wonder that Christians learn nothing new at church. It is also telling that the first generation to skip Sunday School is responsible for the current plague of corruption in public and private institutions. Cultus always leads to culture. Men must learn to kneel before they can stand and walk with authority.

When it comes to the Bible, obtaining an understanding of the blocking of all the actors on the ubiquitous “sacred stage” explains many mysteries.¹²See Orientation Day My favourite example is the blocking of the actors in the account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The placement of all the people in the “legal” architecture of the court of God reveals it to be a replay of the events in Eden, only this time there is a better Adam. Not only this, but the careful mentions of Jesus sitting, bending down and standing are also architectural cues. There is no drama so deep and rich as even the simplest Bible story.¹³See The Emancipation of Eve.

Children And Liturgy

Since every Bible story has the same shape (the Bible Matrix), and each of the seven steps in that process corresponds to some element in the Tabernacle, every Bible story is an expression of the house of God, the heart of the city of God. This is very obviously the case with Exodus 24, and this chapter exposes one of the “architectural conflicts” mentioned above.

The pattern of biblical worship is not compatible with the doctrine of paedosacraments held by Jeff Meyers. Why? Because God never puts children in the Sanctuary. As it was in Eden, even before the children were born, the Sanctuary was only open to those who legally represented them.¹⁴For more discussion, see Cultivation and Representation. Even in the account of the woman caught in adultery, where the real target of the serpent is Jesus, the Offspring of the Woman, it is Jesus as the Man. Those whose intention is to include children in worship patterned after the biblical order should look more closely at that pattern, and this is where Exodus 24 is extremely helpful. The children were included, but we ought to observe how and where they were included.

Here is the pattern of Covenant Renewal Worship in its sevenfold form (from Bible Matrix, p. 217):

As in Genesis 1, the process begins with the authority of heaven and concludes with the establishment of a representative authority on earth. This is also what we see in Exodus 24.

The events of Exodus 24 occurred just before the dictation of the instructions for the Tabernacle. In this chapter, the people of God are not only gathered, cleansed, consecrated, commune with God and are commissioned, they are also divided up within the different stages of the “ascension” process on Mount Sinai. The entire nation, as the “corporate firstborn” of God became a picture of the process of sacrifice, and what we must notice is that the process not only moves from Below, to Beside, to Above, it also takes us from the sons of men on earth to the Sons of God in heaven:

The most common arguments for paedosacraments rely on Circumcision (for paedobaptism) and Passover (for paedocommunion). However, even though women served at the Tabernacle, and even young children had a place in the courts of Solomon’s Temple, not even Israel’s children qualified as legal representatives with Sanctuary access.¹⁵My friend Luke Welch totally screws this up, architecturally-speaking, here. Both Circumcision and Passover concerned the households of men, and their earthly offspring. What we see in the books of Exodus and Leviticus is the establishment of divisions within Israel to accommodate the house of God. Just as Israel was the “firstborn” of God, corporately speaking, the Levites were set apart as legal representatives for those sons of Israel.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:11-13)

This shifted the focus from the Land and womb to the Sanctuary, from the firstborn of the womb to the firstborn from the dead, or, in Tabernacle terms, from bloody flesh to fragrant smoke. Where the Bronze Altar represented the four-cornered earthly inheritance, the Incense Altar represented the coming “heavenly country,” the inheritance of the resurrected saints, the courts of God. The architecture on Mount Sinai prefigured the ascension of the saints at the end of the Old Covenant as a mature, human representative government in heaven. To use Circumcision and Passover as proof of the veracity of paedosacraments is to lift raw flesh into heaven without purification by fire. Paedosacraments are the liturgical equivalent of the tower of Babel, or gathering sticks on the Sabbath to warm your own tent instead of gathering around God’s. Sons of men are not Sons of God.

The conclusion is clearly that children, indeed anyone, is welcome in the New Covenant house of God. The Garden is now free of the accuser, so Eve now rules as co-regent with her Bridegroom. Baptism and table are thus for “both men and women” (Acts 2:18; 5:14; 8:12) as New Covenant “Levites” (men) and “Nazirites” (men and women), but restricting the sacraments to believers does not exclude the children any more than restricting ministry of the Word to men excludes the women. Just as the restriction of priesthood to “Adams” who “died” made worship a safe place for women and children, so the restriction of priesthood to “Adams” and “Eves” under the New Covenant makes worship a safe place not only for our children, but for anyone else who wishes to attend. New Covenant worship is open worship, a drama for all the world to see, and the sacraments are part of the liturgical story which we dare not get wrong. They do not constitute “an intellectual fence” which divides the Church any more than did the divisions within Israel upon Sinai or around the Tabernacle.

Now, we all know a picture is worth a thousand words. It has taken me almost three thousand to explain an inconsistency I noticed by comparing Exodus 24 and Covenant Renewal Worship in a single mental image. This might be why software companies are employing people with varying degrees of autism to find bugs in computer code. I am no genius, but I do know my way around the house.

Thirty-Five Theological Notes

(for old friends and new, who are trying to figure out where I’m coming from) 

Prolegomena

1.  I am an exegete, storyteller, and shepherd. My personal ministry focuses on helping people to pray, know God personally and directly, learn and live the biblical Story, retake lost territory the Church has ceded to the pagans, and use high-concept folk culture as a vehicle for reformation. Mostly in Englewood, Colorado.

2.  I have tried to listen well to the Scriptures and be as faithful as I can be to what they say. Theologians tend to gather in herds like anybody else, and my particular set of emphases has not led me into one of the standard herds.

3.  The spirit of the day being what it is — postmodern ectoplasm that evaporates in a strong light — I am expected to reject herding and its attendant labels, and demand recognition as an absolutely unique snowflake. But no. Gathering in community and giving apt names to things are expressions of the image of God. Hence this explanation, which I hope will help.

4.  Much mischief comes of affirming something we ought to affirm, and then on that basis denying something we ought not to deny. We ought to have learnt this from the doctrine of the Trinity: if we believe in inerrancy, then sometimes we must submit to mystery.

5.  Mood is often more important–and harder to capture–than the standard talking points. For example, I have worked productively with postmil brethren with no problem, and had trouble working with some of my fellow premil folk. The practical difference is mood: when the kings of the earth conspire against Him, Yahweh laughs at them. Do we laugh with Him, or do we think the sky is falling? The difference is easy to see in real life, but it can be quite difficult to codify meaningfully in the standard form of a doctrinal statement.

Basics

6.  I believe the historic Christian faith expressed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the National Association of Evangelicals statement of faith.

7.  I believe in the biblically attested miracles — crossing the Red Sea, Joshua’s long day, virgin birth, water into wine, all of it, because the Bible says so. I believe in a recent, six-literal-day creation and a worldwide flood for the same reason.

8.  Since I don’t approach the Scriptures with the skepticism of a 19th-century liberal, I don’t approach the history of the Church that way either. Having been taught by the Scriptures to believe in such things, I believe in the miracles of the Christian Church, reported in the ministries of such notable saints as Augustine, Patrick of Ireland, George Wishart, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis MacNutt. And I’ve seen some myself.

9.  I have personally experienced the exegetical bankruptcy, practical impotence, and willful historical ignorance of cessationism. Never again. That said, supernatural ministry can be mightily abused, as in Corinth. 1 Corinthians prescribes a solution; cessationism ain’t it.

10.  Just to get it out of the way, I am not a Calvinist, and still less of an Arminian. Both Calvin and Arminius did good service to the church, but they were both Calvinists, and shared a number of assumptions which the Scriptures do not support. Talking about “the theological spectrum from Calvinism to Arminianism” is like talking about “all the colors of the rainbow, from red to pink.” There were 15 glorious centuries of Christian theology before those two worthy gents came along, and a few centuries after them, too. For which all thanksgiving.

11.  I am Protestant, and happy to be. I am deeply in debt to the magisterial Reformation; it remains one of the finest creations of the Roman Church.

Prayer

12.  A strong view of divine sovereignty is necessary to the integrity of the Christian faith. The Scriptures require it, and there’s no point in praying for things unless God is in control.

13.  I believe that God’s hand moves in response to prayer, and sometimes we do not have because we do not ask. This is tough to square with divine sovereignty, but if we only know enough to be obedient, then we know enough. So I pray; resolving the mysteries can wait.

14.  I believe we should learn to pray by praying in the categories of the Lord’s Prayer, because Matthew says so, and in the words of the Lord’s Prayer, because Luke says so. Many struggle to pray effectively because we do not honor our Lord’s instruction in this matter.

The Unity of Christ’s Body

15.   I am small-c catholic. Those who belong to Christ belong to me, and I to them.

16.  I believe in the unity of the Body of Christ. Unity is a cardinal doctrine and practice, essential to maintaining justification by faith (as Paul said in Galatians), and a crucial part of our witness to the world, not to mention being Jesus’ dying wish for His people. Our real convictions on unity are demonstrated in our choices of whom to eat with, pray with, worship with, and work with. If we don’t do those things outside the narrow confines of our home community, we might think unity is permissible, but we don’t think it’s important.

17.  I believe in historical unity. All Christ’s people, everywhere and everywhen, are My People, more so than my family, my fellow Americans or the members of my martial arts club. In the second century, my Church was still finding her feet. In the eleventh century, my Church had suffered an unfortunate split that has yet to be healed. In the fifteenth century, my Church was hopelessly corrupt. She has always been headquartered in the New Jerusalem, no matter what some folks believed about Rome. If we celebrate Veteran’s Day but not Purim or the Feast of All Saints, we have an odd notion of where our primary loyalties lie.

18.  Today the Church lives with denominations and highly denominated nondenominational entities by the million. These tribal loyalties are a blessing insofar as they inspire greater love for God and our neighbors, but when we cease to act as one Body with others who belong to Christ but not to our tribe, we are failing in exactly the way Peter failed at Antioch.

The Church Service

19.  Every regularly held public meeting has some kind of liturgy to it; some churches are more conscious and competent at using their liturgies to achieve their goals. I prefer them.

20.  I believe that worship is about what God wants to receive, not about what we happen to want to give (cf. Cain), and still less about what’s fashionable this month. I believe God has told us to be a Psalm-singing people. If we sing the Psalms and follow the directions they give, we will experience richer worship than is typical in the American church.

21.  Having been taught by Psalm-singing, baptism, communion, and anointing with oil, I believe in physical expressions of worship. I believe that the arts have a strong place in the church’s worship. There’s nothing wrong with spontaneous worship, but I believe in the value of planned prayer, painting, and dance as I believe in the value of planned music and sermons.

22.  I believe in the use of the supernatural ministry gifts in the worship service, because the Bible says so. I also believe that if you’re serious about that, you leave space for it. If you have a 90-minute service time, and you plan 90 minutes of content, you don’t value supernatural ministry. If you schedule a move of the Spirit 27 minutes into the service, you are attempting to control something you shouldn’t. He blows where he wills.

23.  I believe the church service ought to end in communion, with its attendant implications of security and fellowship, rather than an invitation, with its attendant implications of insecurity and crisis. Invitations are fine for revival meetings, but have no place at family gatherings. Repeated invitations of the “Maybe you know a lot about Jesus, but have you ever really…” type have done much mischief to impressionable children who were unfortunate enough to grow up hearing them every week.

Sacraments

24.  I believe in baptizing believers immediately, like they did in Acts. Baptism is the New Covenant analog to circumcision. Of course, we circumcise the baby after he’s born, but since New Covenant members are born twice, we have to ask: “Which birth are we talking about?” If baptism is the new circumcision, then what is the new birth? Well…the new birth. Paedobaptism is a throwback to the days before Christ broke the power of the clan.

25.  I believe in weekly communion, but I also believe that weekly communion will be unbearable until it is celebrated as the feast of victory that it is, rather than observed as an orgy of ungodly introspection. It is vile for a shepherd in Christ’s flock to turn the Corinthians’ sin — which no one is committing today — into an excuse to torment the sheep with every imaginable doubt. Self-examination for the sins discussed in the passage is fair game.

26.  I believe that the wine in the communion cup should be wine, because the Bible says so. I also believe that it is foolish and wicked to divide the Body over how we conduct the Table, so when necessary, I drink my grape juice with joy and thanksgiving.

27.  It is not my Table; it is Christ’s. I am nowhere commanded to fence it; how dare I? All who are His are welcome; all who desire Him are welcome. Jesus did not stint to give Himself to the children, the outcasts, and those who did not yet believe. Of course giving the body and blood of the very Son of God to such people (to any people, for that matter) is blasphemy and sacrilege. But it is Jesus’ sacrilege, not ours. Who am I to argue?

28.  I believe we must speak of the Table as God speaks of it, without hedging. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the elements, without feeling a need to explain the details. I follow the examples of John Knox, John Williamson Nevin, and other stalwart Protestants in refusing to let vain Romish speculation ruin this for me, as it did for poor Zwingli.

Living as a Christian

29.  Eternal life is knowing God. Salvation is irreducibly relational, and individual conversion is absolutely necessary; well-remembered crisis conversion is another matter entirely. Seeing a child on the playground, I can be sure the child is alive without knowing the moment of his birth. Striking up a conversation, I might find that the child himself does not know when he was born. It does not follow that he was never born.

30.  The new birth is a miraculous, gracious act of God which we receive by trusting God. Like any birth, it is the work of the parents, and not the child, that accomplishes it.

31.  The body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. Continuing to grow in Christ requires an ongoing miracle, and again, we must be willing to receive that miracle. But if we are, God will do it.

32.  It is the birthright of every child of God to hear and understand his Father’s voice, in the Bible and in his heart.

33.  Uncertainty is a poor foundation for a life of righteousness. Like any good father, God assures us that we are His own, and urges us to live on that basis. The accusations and doubts that cause us to question our place in the family come from the world, the flesh and the devil–or from our fellow believers, doing the devil’s work for him.

34.  Living as a Christian is a life of continual repentance. We always fall short, and God’s grace is always there to transform us and move us closer to Him. We need only be willing.

35.  Willingness is being open with God: openly communicating to Him what we think, believe and have done, openly hearing His approval and correction, and obeying.

Republished with permission.

…all of the Old Covenant sacraments, like the flood, were future tense and testified to the destruction of the flesh.

[A report from our London correspondent, Chris Wooldridge:]

A week ago, I attended two conferences delivered by Peter Leithart on the subject of the Sacraments. The first one was aimed at anyone interested; the second was addressed more to ministers and theological students.

I’m about to share with you a summary of what I heard at the first conference. If you’re interested in hearing the whole thing, head over to the Emmanuel Evengelical Church resources website.

He began the first conference by speaking about the definition of a sacrament. First he spoke about the traditional Reformed understanding of the sacraments as “signs and seals” of the covenant. He explained that this would involve marking out a certain group of people as belonging to God. Whilst not disputing the traditional Reformed understanding, he went in a slightly different direction after this point, citing older thinkers who began with the Old Covenant when considering the nature of a sacrament.

He started in the Garden of Eden, demonstrating that creation itself is ‘sacramental’. At the centre of the garden were two trees, food as a means to communion with God. He spoke about how the two trees were not merely visible signs, but effected an actual change in Adam and Eve. He then moved on to speak about the fall as an abuse of the sacraments. He then mentioned that after the three ‘falls’ in Genesis 3, 4 and 5 (Adam’s eating, Cain’s murder and prophetic intermarriage), God declares that all humanity is “flesh”, that they are wicked, which seems to anticipate Paul’s negative usage of the term in his letters. In response to this, God destroys all of the ‘flesh’ on the face of the land, sparing only Noah, his household and representative animals and birds.

He explained that all of the Old Covenant sacraments, like the flood, were future tense and testified to the destruction of the flesh. Circumcision, for instance, was the cutting off of the flesh of the foreskin. Likewise, animal sacrifice was the cutting and burning of flesh in holy fire, that it might become transfigured into smoke. He concluded that Jesus Christ destroyed the power of the flesh once and for all in his death on the cross, bringing an end to the Old Covenant.

After the first break he spoke about how, unlike ‘future tense’ Old Covenant sacraments, New Covenant sacraments are ‘present tense’, signifying the accomplished destruction of the flesh in Jesus Christ. His focus was more on the individual believer and he talked about the fact that in Baptism we are given a new name, which makes us a new person. He turned to 1 Peter 3 and noted the contrast between Baptism and the purity rites of the Old Covenant. Unlike those purity rites, which involved the temporary preservation of the flesh, Baptism marks the destruction of the flesh in the one Baptized.

He also spoke about Romans 5-6. In Romans 5, Paul contrasts Adam with Christ and in Romans 6 Paul associates Baptism with the overcoming of the old Adamic world and entry into the new world established in the resurrection of Christ. He drew similar conclusions from Colossians 2, noting that the immoral practices mentioned are overcome by believing what God has spoken in Baptism. He finished by speaking about the Lord’s supper and how we eat it not at a distance (as Israel did in her feasts), but in the presence of God, suggesting once again that New Covenant sacraments are ‘present tense’, marking the fulfilment of the promise.

After lunch, Peter spoke about ‘Sacraments and us’, about the kind of community formed by the sacraments of the New Covenant. He began by contrasting the Old and New Covenants again. Under the Old Covenant, no Israelite would come into the presence of God to drink wine. The priests on duty in the temple stood all day and didn’t drink wine. The Church of the New Covenant sits and drinks wine in God’s presence. Even things like our postures testify to the fact that we are now welcomed into the presence of God through Jesus Christ.

He then moved on to Galatians, and in particular Galatians 3. Paul rebukes the Galatians for eating separately. This testifies to a false gospel by suggesting that the divisions of Abraham (Jew and Gentile, male and female etc.) have not been overcome in the death and resurrection of Christ. He pointed out that Baptism is associated with “clothing” at the end of Galatians 3, which suggests that all of the Baptized are part of the same people, wearing the same uniform. Baptism tears down the racial and cultural divisions which define human communities, making us one new people in Christ. He pointed out that the modern emphasis on ‘diversity and inclusion’ is therefore rooted in Christian principles, however much it may have become distorted.

He drew similar principles from 1 Corinthians. The factions which existed in Corinth were supposed to be overcome by the Gospel, which is why Paul rebukes them so strongly for abusing the Supper in chapter 11 – it was supposed to be the sign of their unity! From 1 Corinthians 10, we see that the Eucharist is supposed to testify to the fact that the many Corinthians are one body, since they partake of ‘one loaf’.

He began his final talk, entitled ‘Sacraments and them’ by speaking about how each member of the body of Christ plays a different part, yet all parts (both weak and strong) are necessary. He drew this primarily from 1 Corinthians 12, which speaks about Baptism as the rite which incorporates us into the body. He spoke about infant baptism as a way of expressing the fact that the Church contains weak members as well as strong ones, as per 1 Corinthians 12. He also suggested on this basis that infants (as the weakest members) should be included in the Lord’s Supper.

He then moved on to speak about the mission of the Church, which begins with being what the sacraments call us to be. He contrasted pagan gods who cannot do anything (speak, see, move etc) with the true God, who can do all things. He applied this to the sacraments by pointing out that they involve doing things like moving, eating and drinking. He also applied this to the whole liturgy of worship which drills us into an army fit to serve God in the world. In other areas of life, such as sport or music, a lot of repetition and practice is required in order to become proficient. The same is true in worship, we learn to do things habitually in order to be like the God we worship. He spoke about the various aspects of the liturgy (calling, confession, hearing, speaking, offering, communion, commissioning) and how they train us to understand the mission of the Church.

A few conclusions: Firstly, the overall message is extremely important and not heard enough in the Church today. The Old Covenant was about the world of the flesh and anticipated the destruction of the flesh in Christ and the New Covenant. This should be the beginning, not only of our understanding of the sacraments, but of our understanding of everything in the Bible. Peter Leithart should be commended for the breadth of his biblical vision.

However, in a few small ways his conclusions went against this overall picture. Although not mentioned very much, his preference for pouring/sprinkling as a mode of Baptism goes against the wider pattern that he painted. In 1 Peter 3, there is a deliberate contrast drawn between the sprinklings of the Old Covenant which temporarily preserved the flesh and Baptism which is associated with the destruction of the flesh. The flood destroyed the power of the flesh active in the world by drowning it. The Old Covenant priests were consecrated by being washed in the laver so that they might serve God. They were immersed again after administering purification for those who were defiled by contact with the dead. When I asked Peter about this, he reverted back to the sprinkling rites of the Old Covenant and to the fact that the righteous in the flood and who passed through the Red Sea were sprinkled with water from above. However, this misses the wider picture, that they were passing through water, just as in Baptism we representatively ‘pass through’ death and into new life in Christ.

Whilst there are arguments which could be made for infant Baptism, his arguments drawn from 1 Corinthians 12 were not very convincing. It’s certainly the case that there are ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ members in the body of Christ, however, it would be begging the question to assume that infants are the ‘weaker’ members which Paul had in mind. The story he gave about a sick baby who ministered to the wider body through the support that they gave could also be true of anyone who sought help from their local Church, regardless of whether they were even a believer!

However, these are minor criticisms. The real strength of the conference laid in the fact that it emphasised whole-bible thinking applied to every area of life. This particularly came to fruition in the final section of the conference, in which he spoke about the need for patterns of worship which train us to think and act biblically, reflecting the character of the God we serve. Peter Leithart is to be commended for his extensive biblical knowledge and his deep applications of biblical patterns to today’s world.

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.

Since Jesus loves little children, and Jesus is the Great Shepherd, our little children must therefore be His lambs.

About whom was Jesus speaking  when He asked Peter to feed his “lambs”? John 21 is used in support of the practice of paedocommunion, but such an argument sees only what it is looking for. If we allow the passage to speak for itself, what is it saying?

Tim Gallant, a friend and scholar who is the author of Feed My Lambs: Why The Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children, writes:

Paedocommunion is the practice of giving the Lord’s Supper to baptized children. Such children participate apart from a coming-of-age ritual such as confirmation or profession of faith…

Rather surprisingly, many who hold to infant baptism reject paedocommunion. They suggest that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are radically different in kind. Biblically speaking, however the two are tied very closely together. Baptism incorporates one into Christ and His Church (1 Corinthians 12:13). Meanwhile, the Lord’s Supper is precisely the meal of the Church. The Church is the one body together precisely because it partakes of the one bread together (1 Corinthians 10:16–17).

Tim is correct in his statement that the sacraments, baptism and table, are not radically different in kind. Paedobaptists who do not allow their baptised infants access to the table have a lot of explaining to do. While I agree with their reasons for refusing access to young children, they are not being consistent since they give them access to baptism. Baptism and table do belong together. The problem with paedocommunionists is that they unite the sacraments at the wrong end of the process of conversion.¹More on this “process” in the next post.

Since there is no support for paedobaptism in the New Testament (despite some wishful claims to the contrary), its proponents make their arguments from the Old Testament. The problem is that they only see what they are looking for, and all the evidence to the contrary in the Old Testament Scriptures is overlooked or ignored. Rather than allowing the texts to speak to them, they do what the worst Bible teachers do and pick out support for what they already “know.”

Beginning with Jesus, baptism painted a big red target on the one baptised, placing the baptizand directly in the cross hairs of the world, the flesh and the devil.

What is a lamb?

Since Jesus loves little children, and Jesus is the Great Shepherd, our little children must therefore be His lambs. We can imagine nothing more comforting than our infants safe in the arms of Jesus. But nothing could be further from the truth. Beginning with Jesus, baptism did not put anyone in safe arms. Instead, it painted a big red target on the one baptised, placing the baptizand directly in the cross hairs of the world, the flesh and the devil.

Paedobaptists see Jesus’ blessing of children as proof for paedobaptism, but it is in fact the opposite. Jesus was the baptised one because He was not a ravenous wolf like Cain but a lamb like Abel. Jesus could bless the children because He would bear the curse coming upon them as their guardian. What does He say?

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10)

This verse does not say that the children of Israel were “sons of God.” Paedobaptists will twist any text that involves children to fit their paradigm, and miss what the text is actually saying. He is threatening those who would harm even infants in their quest for power, noting that these were under the protection of angelic guardians like the Angel of Passover who took vengeance upon Egypt for the slaughter of the Hebrew children. It is not the infants who see the face of God, but the sons of God, those invested with authority to represent heaven on earth. The lost sheep on earth are not the sacrificial lambs which ascend to heaven. The sons of Abraham (or you) are not the sons of God. Circumcision of flesh only pictures circumcision of heart. Any claim otherwise is Judaistic and potentially demonic.

Jesus blessed the children because He was not a king like the Herods. He was a priest-king, and His baptism was a sacrificial washing, preparing Him to be offered. It was His baptism which set Him on a path to depose the Herods, and it would result in bloodshed that would touch every Israelite. True baptism is about an authority which comes only after humiliation, the only kind of authority which comes from God. All else is a demonic grasp for power like that committed in Eden.

The authority which comes through baptism is Covenantal, but the Old Covenant only gave us types of this kind of power. Baptism is about the authority to bind or loose, curse or bless, not only on earth but in heaven, since it comes from the heavenly Father and not our earthly fathers. Paedobaptism is all about being bound like Isaac under a Covenant made with earthly fathers. Seen in the light of the New Covenant, the practice is carnal, cultic, and exactly the sort of thing which had the apostles spitting fire to preserve the Church from elitist, Judaistic doctrines.

A lamb is not a little child. A lamb was a blameless mediator whose blood would be spilled. When Jesus said “Feed my lambs,” He was not talking about Christian parenting. Jesus was talking about martyrdom, the shedding of the blood of men and women who would testify for Him and die as He did. To take these words and twist them to support paedosacraments is to undermine the entire point of Pentecost and the apostolic witness, and indeed the ministry of all the prophets through the ages, beginning with Abel, the first priest murdered by a godless king.

A New Covenant lamb is a mediator between heaven and earth, that is, a human sacrifice. A paedobaptistic ecclesiology is exactly the kind of kingdom offered by Satan to the Jewish leaders, and by Satan to Adam. It was also offered by Satan to Christ shortly after His baptism, but Jesus knew who His real Father was, and His circumcised heart continued to please Him.

A blameless death

Much commentary on Jesus’ words in John 21 misses the meaning of the passage because it is not taken it in its entirety. Certainly, Jesus lived in a generation where literacy was not enjoyed by everyone, so the teaching of the apostles was crucial. But this teaching was not the end but the means. It is clear from what follows that Jesus is asking Peter to fatten the believers for the coming slaughter, the “tribulation of the saints” which would come before the end of the age, the conclusion of the Old Covenant era with its Temple and animal sacrifices.

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.” (John 21:17-19)

Both baptism and table are sacrificial in nature, and the institution of these sacraments by Jesus as continued “memorials” of the death and resurrection of Christ was foundational to the end of the Old Covenant. Why is this? Because baptism and table replaced the ministry of the Temple.

The saints indeed did greater works than Jesus, by multiplying the ministry of the cross.

The sacrifice of “blameless” animals was no longer required because there was now a blameless man. Not only that, but those who believed in Him were also considered blameless, without spot or wrinkle, by God, and thus considered to be acceptable sacrifices. Baptism and the table, the water and the blood, were not only for the cleansing of the priests. The sacrificial animals also had “access” to the Laver. The animals stood in for the priests just as the slaughter of animals stood in for Adam. The Laver is only for mediators.

Jesus spoke these words to Peter after His resurrection. When He said “Follow me” He quite obviously required a voluntary response. Moreover, it is Jesus Himself, as the Angel of the Lord, who swings the sickle in Revelation 14, harvesting the saints — those who ate His flesh and drank His blood — as a great body of grain and grapes, flesh and blood. Through the ministry of the twelve, the Lord’s Table was measured out across the entire “four cornered” Land of Israel, and the blood flowed from the winepress like a river and became a sea, up to the bridles of the horses of the Herodian Pharaohs.

As the blood of Christ rent the Veil, so the blood of the prophets would rend not only the Temple, but also the city and the Land. The saints indeed did greater works than Jesus, by multiplying the ministry of the cross.

What is the Table?

The continued need of my Federal Vision friends to explain the meaning of “the table” feels more like a shell game than the Lord’s Supper. It is a nebulous cloud of “meaning” where it is impossible to put one’s finger on the actual meaning. Apparently these is so much going on that it defies a simple explanation. However, the more complex something is, the more likely it is to be contrived. And sacramentalism is entirely contrived.

What is the meaning of the table? We voluntarily, willingly, identify with the death and resurrection of Christ. We eat His flesh and drink His blood so that when we suffer as martyrs, it is His flesh being torn and His blood being spilled. The idea that this Table is for infants and children as “lambs” is an insult to Christians suffering around the world (regardless of whether their traditions commune children or not).

The more I think about it, the less I would be inclined to take communion at the table of a sacramental church – especially while the murder of Christians around the world keeps me in mind of what this table actually meant for Jesus and His disciples, and what it was intended to mean for us. The call to the Table is not the call to salvation, but a call to those already saved to come and die.

If someone actually finds the pea of “meaning” in this abhorrent shell game, I will be surprised. I think it has rolled under the baptismal font and will never be seen again until some iconoclast rightly tosses that Roman piece of furniture into the trash where it belongs. Baptismal fonts make me angry. What they stand for is against the fundamental tenets of the New Covenant.

But what does it mean to partake of Christ? It is more than the offerer identifying with the sacrifice by leaning his hand upon it. It is more than the priests eating of the sacrifices. It is not a call to come to Christ for salvation. It is to become a sacrifice through voluntary, public identification with Christ.

Now, one might argue that plenty of children of Christians have also been murdered. But is this the flesh and blood of the body of Christ?

What is a son?

The murder of infants is certainly tragic, but there is a reason Adam was created an adult and his willingness to obey God tested. There is a difference between the sons of men (which includes the offspring of Christians), and the sons of God, those who represent heaven on earth. Physical offspring is the “first birth” and spiritual offspring are the “second birth.” Circumcision of flesh concerned physical offspring. Circumcision of heart concerns spiritual offspring. (It amazes me that this must be explained over and over to such people of understanding. I guess that is the power of a corrupted paradigm. Whatever does not fit is rejected, even if Scriptural.) Only the second birth protects one from the second death. Members of my family and your family are not members of the family of God, not without repentance and obedient faith, anyway.²See Children of Heaven.

Thus, our children represent us in history, as God’s children (those who can hear and obey God) represent Him. As Adam represented God to his children, and also represented his children before God, He was a mediator. Thus it is not Christ’s flesh being torn in our children. It is our flesh. The circumcision of Isaac was also the cutting of the flesh of Abraham. This is why the Jews referred to themselves as the children of Abraham. It was a carnal membership, a community of sacrificial flesh protected through animal substitutes.

The baptism of Christ, however, was a step of obedience as a sacrificial washing. Like all baptisms which followed, it was an ordination for ministry, and brought a testimony of acceptance from the heavenly Father, ending the significance of both the Abrahamic lineage and the Aaronic priesthood. Christ was the “son of the herd,” an expression in the Law which is distorted in English translations.³See James B. Jordan, The Lamb of God, Part 1, Biblical Horizons No. 39.

What about Passover?

Paedocommunionists use Passover to support the access of infants and children to the Lord’s Table. The problem is that there was, and is, more than one Table in the book of Exodus.

Jesus ripped a “Levitical tithe” out of the Passover meal and lifted it to God.

The Passover separated the priestly nation of Israel from the kingdom of Egypt. The meaning of this can be traced right back to Noah’s curse upon Canaan the son of Ham.⁴See Cutting Off Canaan. Passover was the Table of Israel, a national feast which highlighted Israel’s identity as the shepherd nation. The Egyptians despised shepherds. Passover was about the separation of Priesthood and Kingdom, Abel and Cain. However, the Lord’s Table in Exodus 24 was about Prophecy. The architecture measured out in the children of Israel was a replica of the Tabernacle which would soon be built. All Israel was gathered at the base of the mountain and sprinkled with blood, but only Moses (as the Ark) and the elders of Israel (as the Incense Altar) ascended and dined with the Lord, whom they saw walking on a sapphire pavement, the Crystal Sea, which was the heavenly court of the angelic Sons of God.

We see the same two tables at the Last Supper. The Passover was celebrated, but after the meal, Jesus served a second one, and it was only served to these new elders who dined with Him. Just as the Firstfruits followed Passover but occurred during Unleavened Bread, so Jesus ripped a “Levitical tithe” out of the Passover meal and lifted it to God. The Passover animal could be a lamb or a kid, a priestly brother or a kingly brother, an Abel or a Cain, a Jacob or a hairy Esau, but the Firstfruits sacrifice was always a lamb, a priest who would inherit the kingdom by faith.

So what is the significance of the Lord’s supper? It is not about our offspring having Jesus as their sacrificial substitute. By dining with Jesus, the apostles partook of His ministry. Jesus turned the disciples into sacrificial lambs, men who would no longer need sacrificial substitutes, because they themselves would be blameless. For an entire generation, their blood would “fill up” the sufferings of Christ as a testimony to the Jews and then the Gentiles.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ”For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” (Romans 8:31-36)

This leads us to the irony of the final Herodian Passovers, celebrated it seems in spite of the well-known prophecies of Jesus. After the completion of the Temple, millions of lambs were slaughtered every year. Reading the Old Testament prophets concerning Israel’s abuse of the sacrificial system, we can understand the seriousness of the offence of these offerings to God after the murder of His Son.

Post-Pentecostal Judaism adored Passover because it despised Jesus. Passover itself became the leaven of the Herods, and this sentiment is subtly contained in paedocommunion, a rite which appeals to the flesh, a demarcation between “us” and “them.” The idea that we Christians can somehow minister the new birth to our own children in place of the hand of God is exactly what the Circumcision revelled in. It stands in stark contrast to repentance and faith, at least in the godly logic of the New Testament. The Table of paedocommunion is exactly the kind of Table which Jesus turned into a snare for those Jews who cursed Jesus because God had come in the flesh and ended the Circumcision.⁵See Their Table Made A Snare. The Seed of Abraham had now grown up and exposed their household as a nest of serpents.

Even Abraham understood what paedosacramentalists refuse to believe.

Ironically, this focus on physical, “Passover” offspring turned Jerusalem first into a new Egypt, through Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, and then into a new Jericho. Where Israel was circumcised “a second time” before the destruction of Jericho, it was the murder of Christian Jews in Jerusalem which left the city desolate at last.

Jesus ripped the Lord’s Supper out of the corpse of Passover in the way Yahweh brought Eve from the side of Adam, and the Spirit brought the Bride from the side of Christ. Passover died in Christ, along with the Covenant of earthly sons. The division between Priesthood and Kingdom, Jew and Gentile, Cain and Abel, was consumed in the coming of The Prophet.

When Christ died, the message was the same as that given to Abraham, “Not your son but mine.” The Jews who rejected Christ answered, “Not your Son but ours.” The ministry of the apostles was, “Not your sons but my Sons.” The judgment of AD70 was the final object lesson, the last dark saying. Even Abraham understood what paedosacramentalists refuse to believe.

Sheep Among Wolves

The identity of the New Covenant “lambs” is very apparent in Matthew 10, where Israelites according to the flesh are referred to as “lost sheep” not because they are children but because they have been led astray. As Jesus’ lambs, the disciples are also to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. The standard for “lambs” is entirely ethical. It concerns spiritual maturity, so Tim Gallant’s use of the word “lambs” to describe paedocommunion is carnal at best and unwittingly anti-Christian at worst.

Jesus describes the treatment of these “lambs” as he later described the manner of Peter’s death. He cannot possibly be speaking about infants or children, or even earthly households. Let the scales fall from your eyes and read the words of Matthew 10 afresh, words spoken to men who would not only die like their master, but rise again as He did. The speech is all about testimony, witness, the martyroi. To consider Jesus’ lambs as anything else is to reject the New Covenant. Is there an infant Jesus on the throne?⁶No doubt, some will get to the end of passage, and reject the obvious in favour of an errant interpretation of “little ones.” Jesus is actually working His way through a hierarchy based on the Ten Words, ending with the lowly servants of the New Covenant household, the least of His brothers. The New Testament follows the Old Covenant pattern consistently, however, where the Old most often refers to physical offspring and family at Succession, the New always speaks of spiritual offspring. An example would be the greetings to the saints at the end of many of the epistles.

The structure of Matthew 10 is itself sacrificial, and you will notice that it is the disciples who are now the angels ministering life or death to the households of Israel. They themselves are the lambs at the door. And their martyrdom served as the final warning, the last trumpets, to Old Covenant Israel.

TRANSCENDENCE

HIERARCHY

ETHICS

OATH/SANCTIONS

SUCCESSION

Jesus would be gathered first to the true fathers, then, once enthroned, He would gather the true sons.

In English, the word manger is archaic, preserved for us by the Christmas tradition. In French, the word is still in use, being the infinitive “to eat.” As with every detail in the Scriptures, the fact that the One who would give Himself to us in the elements of a meal was placed in a food trough invites contemplation.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

Christ at the centre of history is the entire Creation in one Man: Forming, Filling and Future.

“…the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
(Revelation 19:10)

The Creation Week, although sevenfold, consisted of three days of Forming, three days of Filling, and then a Future, the dominion of the world promised to Adam. But before Adam could be considered qualified to rule the world as the representative of God, Adam himself would have to be a new creation.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

The history of mankind is one of good gifts turned into idols. Blessings abused become curses in the hands of those who won’t look God in the eye.

For those of us who know the Bible, the idolatries become more subtle. This was the case for the Pharisees. The exile had purified Israel of old-school idolatry, so she invented a new school: an elitism bound by an Abrahamic heritage and energized by the abuse of Moses and the Law as a means of salvation: heritage instead of faith; obligation instead of salvation. The good things given as gifts once again became the gods.

In a day when Christians fall into similar traps (Jesus-and-a-second-blessing, Jesus-and-speaking-in-tongues, Jesus-and-homeschooling, Jesus-and-organic-food, Jesus-and-communal-living, Jesus-and-education, Jesus-and-poverty, Jesus-and-prosperity, Jesus-and-Israel, Jesus-and-nationalism), two things become clear: a) we don’t really understand or want Jesus, and b) despite our claims concerning the leading of the Holy Spirit, what we really want is legislation. Being Spirit-led is too awkward, too much like looking God in the eye.

Jesus did not deal with the Essenes, and He hardly bothered with the Sadducees. He targeted the Pharisees because they were the evangelicals of the day, the ones closest to the truth. And yet they were the ones who handed Him over to be crucified.

Their idolatry at the end of Israel’s history was the most subtle lie of the serpent: rather than disregarding the Covenant like Esau, or disobeying it like Israel’s kings, the Covenant itself was hijacked and turned into an idol. “We are God’s people.” Paul warned the Roman Christians against falling into the same error. The Church becomes the bride who only has eyes for her wedding dress.

The renewed interest in Covenant theology is a great blessing. By this I mean the shape and nature of the biblical Covenants, how this structures the historical outcomes throughout the Bible, and how it informs the interpretation of many of the obscure passages of the Bible. It opens everything like the canopener from heaven. But like all blessings from God, in the hands of those who will not look God in the eye, the gift becomes a curse. Well-meaning people start opening other cans: cans of Herodian worms.

We live in an age where the dropout rate of young people from Church is higher than ever. Of course, the human reaction is to curb the rate of spiritual delinquency. The solution is found in searching the Scriptures, of course. After the mostly disastrous childrearing efforts of the patriarchs, the Law of Moses dictated means by which children might be raised in the nurture of the Lord. This was a beneficial discovery, but the desire to solve a New Covenant problem has led to what is likely the most subtle error of serpent. He used it to sidetrack the Pharisees, and he is using it again today. The error is Jesus-and-Covenant.

What do I mean by this? Any idolatry is the taking of one’s eye from the giver and an unhealthy focus on the gift. Jesus did not give the New Covenant to the nations as Yahweh gave the stone tablets to Moses or as He gave the promises to Abraham. Certainly, there was sacrificial bloodshed and holy fire involved in every case, but at the Last Supper, Jesus gave Himself. Jesus is the Covenant.

This innovation, the union of the giver and the gift, God incarnate, would seem to be the solution to idolatry. In the New Covenant, Jesus is our nearbringing, and in Him we behold the very face of God, unveiled by the Spirit to those who believe. But however the Lord draws us near, the flesh is always prone to shrink back in unbelief, to seek water from cisterns dug with human hands.

The invention of “Covenant children” who are put “in Christ” in “baptism” and need “spiritual nourishment” through Communion is an exaltation of the flesh over the Spirit. I know many will find this offensive, but this construct is simply one more way of avoiding God in the face of Jesus Christ. Every one of these acts evades the real nature of the Gospel, and indeed, of the Last Supper: willing communion with Christ in His sufferings and His resurrection. This subtle perversion of the New Covenant replaces repentance and faith with heritage, and true salvation (conversion) with legalism disguised as a Covenantal obligation. It puts Christ where He is not, and in the process obscures where He is really to be found. Ironically, it often seems to be the case that those who have the least understanding of biblical Covenants, yet walk with Jesus, have the real thing. They have Jesus Himself, who is the Covenant.

NEXT: Raising Cain.

ART: Portrait of Herod by Giuseppe Arcimboldo

Who are the dogs and pigs whom Jesus warns His hearers against in Matthew 7?

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

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

Join now for a year for $15!

“The Lord’s Table is for dangerous people.”

If you are going to baptize infants, it makes sense that you would also allow them to take Communion. Baptism brings one into the priesthood (through the Laver) to the court of God, and Communion is fellowship in the priestly kingdom. To unite the two is consistent—as consistent as the two pillars flanking the threshold of Solomon’s Temple.

The inclusion of children in Israel’s religious meals is used to support the practice. Some of those against it have asserted that these meals, even perhaps the Passover, did not include the children. James Jordan has a fascinating chapter entitled “Children and the Religious Meals of the Old Creation” in The Case for Covenant Communion. Where many Reformed writers (including some other authors in this book) get tied up in knots by the Reformers and their own traditions, Jordan’s perspective is always fresh because he looks first to the Bible, not for proof texts but for principles.

Jordan makes a clear case for the inclusion of children in the religious meals of the “old creation.” He lists a number of age specifications for various Israelite offices, and notes that there is no age specified for participation in the Passover meal. He concludes that if God had wanted to, he certainly could have specified a minimum age for participation.

So, children were included in Israel’s religious meals, most notably in the Passover. Since Israel was the Covenant people, then the children in the Christian Church should participate in Communion. Or should they?

The Circumcision of Israel

This sounds logical, of course, but it is the same logic by which one would expect a bruised, bloodied Jesus to wake up in the tomb, crawl out and stagger around with His burial clothes hanging off Him. Paedocommunion doesn’t speak of resurrection so much as resuscitation. And despite the truth concerning the meals of the Old Creation, dragging them into the New Creation, as I have said before, is akin to heaving the bloody Bronze Altar with its flesh and ashes inside the tent. Paedobaptism and paedocommunion are a call for God to accept the flesh.

Appealing to the Old Testament to interpret New Testament events is extremely helpful, but what if the New Testament event is itself a deliberate reinterpretation? Jesus did this all the time, and one of the most important is what He did at His last Passover, or more correctly, what He did to the last Passover.

What was Passover about? Circumcision and Passover were about redeeming Israel’s males from the barrenness of the womb, and the barrenness of the Land, curses upon the Covenant Head which can be traced back to Genesis 3.

What did Jesus do to Passover? He ended it. He ate the Passover with His disciples, and then the meal which spoke of cutting off history (leaven speaks of historical continuity), was itself cut off. There would be no more Passovers because it was only a shadow, and the day was about to dawn. In Jesus, all Israel had been redeemed and grown up. It was time for something new.

During the Passover, Jesus instituted a new meal. A symbolic meal, a “taste,” of risen bread and shared wine was taken out of the old meal. A new Israel was being established out of the corpse of the old one, not spiritually, not socially, not physically, but all three together. The combination of the priestly and kingly pillars in Solomon’s Temple invite the third pillar, the prophetic Shekinah, to indwell. The table of God is a place reserved for prophets.

Now, I could argue that since there were no children present, children cannot participate in Communion. But there were no women present either, and we know that women have always been allowed to take Communion. So there must be something deeper going on here.

Feed My Lambs?

“Jesus’ commission to Peter after His resurrection was not to dole out bread and wine to infants. It was to fatten those who had taken up their crosses, to prepare them for the slaughter to come…”

Tim Gallant, who also contributed to the book mentioned above, authored another book entitled Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children. While I appreciate the pastoral heart behind the desires of these faithful men to see children raised in the knowledge of God, it seems to me they have missed the point of the Last Supper.

Firstly, the title of Tim’s book refers to Jesus’ threefold command to Peter after Peter’s threefold betrayal (John 21:15-17). But what was Jesus actually saying when He gave that commission to Peter? He was, as usual, taking Old Testament architecture and fulfilling it in the flesh as a human Tabernacle. From God’s Kitchen:

In Peter, Jesus takes the people of Israel from outside the tent of Moses to sit inside as priests and elders.

Peter warmed himself at a fire outside the house of the High Priest. Architecturally, he stood at the Bronze Altar. The Covenant Ethics are three tests, symbolized in the blood, the fire and the smoke—or flesh, eyes and life. When tested, Peter refused to identify himself with the Lamb.

Luke records that Jesus “looked” at Peter. Whenever Jesus “looks intently” in the Gospels, He is the Lampstand, the Law, the eyes of God, the watchman lifted up over Israel as sun, moon and stars. The lunar feasts were fast fading as the sun of righteousness arose. And the rooster heralded the dawn.

John records the dawning of a better day. This time the fire is not on the Land but by the Sea. The focus has shifted from the center of Israel to her borders with the wild nations. The resurrected Jesus invites Peter not to offer himself to death but to dine with One who has conquered death on his behalf. Architecturally, Peter has passed through the Laver—from death to life—to join Christ as an elder at the Altar of Incense.

Again, Peter is tested three times. Instead of Altar; Fire; Altar, it is Feed; Tend; Feed. In this way, Jesus deals compassionately with past failure and calls Peter to a better future (as He does with us every week at the Lord’s Table). But in Peter’s recommission, and in ours, there is a call to sacrificial life. There is a transfixing redness to the New Covenant dawn.

The “official” death-and-resurrection of Peter would be repeated in the Firstfruits Church. When Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, they both knew those sheep, like Peter, were being fattened for the altar.

Animal sacrifices were no longer acceptable now that Jesus had died and risen again.

But in Jesus, human ones were.

For whoever would save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake
and the gospel’s will save it. 
(Mark 8:35)

The reason there were only men at the Last Supper is because a new lamb was being selected for sacrifice: not only a head, but also a body. Following the Ascension Offering in Leviticus 1, the head would be offered first, and then the body would be washed and offered. Sharing in this feast with Jesus made these men members of the sacrificial lamb, that is, parts of its body. Jesus was the first human sacrifice which was acceptable to God. Because the Father accepted Him, as firstfruits, the full harvest, the body, was made acceptable also.

What I am saying here is that the disciples, through transformation into apostles, were human sacrifices. Just as Jesus’ death dealt with the serpent (the counterfeit head), their deaths dealt with the brood of vipers, the fiery serpents ruling Jerusalem (the counterfeit body). This is why there were not women and children present. Corporately speaking, the disciples were the “bones” of the Passover lamb which were not to be broken. They would form the structure of a new house, a new Tabernacle which was made entirely out of lambs. This was about the end of circumcision, which was not about children but about males.

After the resurrection, women are in the picture again, and in a big way. They are the first “witnesses” because the role of the Woman is the sacrifice of praise. After the serpent is felled, she sings and calls down the Covenant curses upon it. But once again, where are the children? Are they absent? No. But it is clear that the New Covenant is not about Jew and Gentile but about a new priesthood for all people. It is not about the cutting of flesh but about witness, about testimony, about telling what you have seen now that you have tasted death under the Law and your eyes have been opened. Having tasted death, as Jesus did for all men, innoculates one against death. It loses its sting. Baptism is for those who confess with their mouths that they are willing to lose their lives for Jesus’ sake and the Gospel’s. Baptism is an act of courage.

So Jesus’ commission to Peter after His resurrection was not to dole out bread and wine to infants. It was to fatten those who had taken up their crosses, to prepare them for the slaughter to come, through which they would bring down Jerusalem and then Rome—”every high thing which exalts itself against the knowledge of God.”

In the Law, a lamb does not speak of a young child but of a blameless son, like Jesus at His baptism. He was vindicated before His earthly father at age twelve and vindicated before His heavenly Father at age 30, ready for holy war. Baptism is not for babies or infants but for holy warriors, and there were no baby Nazirites (but there were women!). To make it so is to miss the point of union with Christ altogether, and make the New Covenant into something social, something carnal, a community according to the flesh. Paedobaptism is poison to the heart of the New Covenant.

To open baptism and Communion to infants is to take the Church back to the Old Covenant, the time of dark sayings and shadows. It is to say that Christ has not come in the flesh, and Christ is not risen from the dead, and this was exactly the motive behind the Herods’ years of glorious Passovers leading up to the destruction of their serpentine rulers, their women, and their children—the entire congregation was “circumcised.”

So, what about our children? We are holy members of the Lamb, bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh, but also Spirit of His Spirit. The Lord’s table is not for “feeding” infants the Gospel. Look at the picture above. It is a group of subversives planning to change the world by laying down their lives. The Lord’s Table is for dangerous people, and partaking in the Table is itself a public testimony. It is for living sacrifices, and our physical children, as with all those who hear and have not yet repented, feed upon us. We are the cut up, washed “members” of the lamb on the Altar. We mediate Jesus to them. Only the Gospel transforms the sons of men into the sons of God, and all the sons of God are sacrificial lambs who have willingly taken up the cross. The New Covenant body is a human sacrifice.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:27)