One of the reasons why moderns (including Christians) don’t really know what to do with the Mosaic Law is the failure to understand biblical history as a process of maturation. The prohibition of the second (kingly) tree in the Garden corresponds to the Food Laws, for instance. Like Israel’s temporary abstinence from meat (kingly food) in the wilderness, these laws were all for the purpose of humbling, for preparing servants to rule as God’s representatives. Once mature, they would be invited to eat with God as friends, rather than merely attending as servants.
[Apologies to those readers who have had enough of me railing against paedobaptism. It's not personal. It's not that I have any loyalty to any doctrinal system, denomination or tradition. It's that a group of godly guys taught me how beautiful the structure of the Bible is but maintain, to my eyes at least, a tradition which contradicts that beauty. The internal logic of the Scriptures -- including the Old Testament Scriptures -- spits out paedobaptism at every turn. In every round of typological musical chairs I play, paedobaptism has nowhere to sit.]
We ended last time with the observation that all Israel was a “bridal” nation. The Israelite robe, like the Nazirite vow, was something that pertained to both males and females. Why is this?
In a recent sermon on 1 Samuel 30, Doug Wilson commented on David’s insistence that those who stayed behind to guard the supplies received an equal share of the plunder:
“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.
or Riffing on Moses
The Lord’s name might not be mentioned explicitly in the book of Esther (though some scholars see it hidden in the text), but as literature it is riddled with riffs on the patterns found in the Law and the Prophets. We don’t see it because we don’t interpret “musically,” that is, looking for recurring themes. 
The systematic typology of the Bible Matrix allows us to follow the structures of the Torah thoughout the rest of the Bible. Here’s something that links the Restoration era with the book of Deuteronomy.
Doug Wilson writes:
“Why do baptists not understand the covenant? The answer is not what many paedobaptists want to hear — the baptists do not understand it because paedobaptists do not understand it” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 95).
In context, Pastor Wilson’s argument here seems to be that if the church is suffering from nominalism, paedobaptism is not to blame.
Psalm 8:2 gets cited in support of paedobaptism. But what is it actually about? It’s a retelling of the Covenant story, from Egypt to Canaan, from the Nile (bloody waters below) to the Jordan, the river of resurrection (purifying waters above). It moves from circumcision of the firstborn to baptism of the bride, from Covenant Head to Covenant Body. Like the royal screen above, it’s not ungarnished truth, but it’s not fictitious either. It’s facts presented as symbolic art.
Doug Wilson writes:
“The Levitical administration brought strong curses for disobedience (Heb. 2:2-3); the New Covenant administration brings much greater curses (Heb. 10:29; Heb. 12:25). Christians commonly assume that the really terrifying curses for disobedience were given in the Old Testament, and that under the New Testament all is grace. But this is precisely the opposite of the New Testament’s teaching on the subject” (To a Thousand Generations, pp. 28-29).
This is certainly a side of the New Covenant that Christians are never taught. The first time I ever heard of it was in David Chilton’s Revelation commentary The Days of Vengeance in 1989. But along with baptism (just had to throw that in), a rediscovery of the Old Covenant hammer makes everything in the New Covenant look like a nail. The Revelation is, after all, a book about the end of the Old Covenant.
“…how we feast and celebrate is a reflection of our beliefs concerning the salvation of the world.”
Sermon Notes on Deuteronomy 14:22-29 – Part 3
Guest post by Michael Shover
There is another aspect to the Feast of Booths that we need to take into consideration. The sacrifices. During the Feast of Booths, 70 bulls were sacrificed. 13 on the first day, 12 on the second, 11 on the third, 10 on the fourth, 9 on the fifth, 8 on the sixth, 7 on the seventh which equals 70. Then 1 on the last day. Why 70? What is the significance of the number 70? The 70 bulls represented the 70 nations of the world as outlined in Gen. 10. The 1 bull that was sacrificed on the eighth day represented Israel. The 70 bull sacrifices represented the ingathering and atonement for the 70 nations of the world. Salvation was accomplished by Israel for all the nations.