Chiasms are everywhere in the Bible, yet “chiasm” is a word I had never heard before the age of 40. What’s up with Bible teachers? So, if you’re like I was, and totally unaware of these cool things, a chiasm is an occurrence of literary symmetry. Not only are these the way the entire Bible is constructed, you’ll always find them working at multiple levels. And they are not merely cool: they show us the shape of the work of God.¹For an introduction to chiasms in the Bible, see Reading the Bible in 3D.

Here’s the chiastic structure of Genesis 46-50 according to my friend Eric Greene. It makes me think that there are six similar structures which precede it. How would Genesis then be chiastic? Well, it begins and ends with a young man who is put in charge of the food, doesn’t it? Thus, part of the significance of Joseph is his submission to God, his faithfulness as a better Adam who humbled himself and was exalted that he might be a blessing to all nations. The “multiple levels” thingy should be dawning on you right about now. The Bible is amazing.

You might also notice that the structure of this journey of Jacob (Israel the man) is a microcosm of Israel the nation’s journey from Canaan to Egypt and back again. Moreoever, we can see the subject matter of the first seven books of the Bible recapitulated (or pre-capitulated) as deep structure:

_

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 John 16:7-11, we read:

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

What does it mean for the Spirit to “convict the world in regard to righteousness?” And what is the causal connection with Jesus going to the Father?

The phrase “sin, righteousness and judgment” refers to a threefold legal process found throughout the Bible. By Covenant, God chooses and qualifies His representatives.

The threefold legal process relates to the Creation Week because it moves from a “forming” to a “filling” and then to a “future.”

The Covenant pattern itself is fivefold:

TRANSCENDENCE (who’s the boss?)
…..HIERARCHY (whom has He put in charge?)
……….ETHICS (what are we to do?)
…..SANCTIONS (what will we get?)
SUCCESSION (when is He coming back?)

However, this pattern contains the “forming, filling, future” structure of the Creation week:

Transcendence and Hierarchy are the “forming,” as uncreated authority is delegated to a representative. Yahweh is the cause and His representative is the effect.

Ethics and Sanctions are the “filling” of the Covenant. Here, the Laws are the cause and the blessings/curses are the effect.

In each case, as cause becomes effect, “word” becomes flesh. The forming concerns the establishing of the legal parties and the filling concerns the expression of their relationship. It is a “head” and a “body.”

Finally, Succession concerns the “future.” Those who understood that the Ethics were intended for good and not evil (as Joseph did, and Adam didn’t), are given greater authority, just as Jesus promised.

The “forming, filling, future” process found not only within the entire Covenant pattern, but “fractally” within the Ethics step on its own.

The Law is given; the Law is opened; the Law is received. These three steps are the revelation of the Ethics of the Covenant as the beginning of a New Creation.

Aligned with the Bible Matrix, you can see that the Law is given at Ascension (Moses on the mountain as Firstfruits), the Law is opened at Testing (Pentecost), and the legal witness by (or against) Israel is received at Maturity (Trumpets).

This threefold process is seen typologically in a number of key ways.

Firstly, it is seen in the “three-decker” primeval world: the Garden Sanctuary (Adam), the Land (Abel/Seth), and the World (Noah).

Secondly, it is inherent in the three-decker architecture of the Tabernacle: the Most Holy contained the Laws of Moses (conviction of sin); the Holy Place contained furniture which imaged the blameless nearbringing sacrifice (blood/Table + fire/Lampstand + smoke/Incense altar = righteousness); the Court (blood and water = judgment). This construct is a miniature of the primeval world.

Thirdly, it is seen in the threefold offices of priest, king and prophet, which correspond to the three furnitures in the Holy Place. The priest makes offerings for sin against the Law (forming a holy place), the king models and upholds righteousness in the light of the Law (filling the place with light), and the prophet speaks of coming judgment (the two-edged “binary” future).

Priest: God’s face is against Adam until blameless blood is shed (Showbread/Ascension).

King: God’s face shines upon Adam (Lampstand/Testing).

Prophet: As a priest-king, Adam speaks as God’s face (Incense Altar/Maturity).

You might also notice that a priest deals only in judgment upon animal substitutes, a king judges human lawbreakers, but a prophet proclaims the end for entire nations and empires. Each role is also threefold, with its own level of dealing with sin, righteousness and judgment:

For the obedient Priest, atoning for sin, it is blood (sin), fire (righteousness) and smoke (judgment – God’s favor).

For the wise King, as righteous son, it is the process of hearing the testimony of witnesses, discerning their hearts by the Spirit, and executing a righteous judgment or showing mercy.

For the commissioned Prophet, it is hearing directly from God (faith: “they do not believe in me”); seeing the Sanctions poured out in a vision (obedience: “I go to my Father”) and speaking to the corrupted kings and priests on behalf of the righteous (legal witness: “the satan/prosecutor stands condemned”).

In the New Testament, Jesus paid for sin in the Garden, the “firstfruits” apostles proclaimed His righteousness and resurrection to the kings of the Land (leading to AD70 and the avenging of the blood of Abel), and the Church now carries their doctrine to the entire world, leading to the final judgment. Of course, each of these stages is a “fractal” extension, a “future” outcome of the previous one.

The triune ethical office also aligns typologically with Genesis 1:

Priest: Days 1-3 – FORMING (dividing light from darkness, etc.)

King: Days 4-6 – FILLING (beginning with the governing lights)

Prophet: Day 7 – FUTURE (entering into God’s rest)

We can also see it in Jacob’s vision of the heavenly Babel in Genesis 28:

Forming: And he dreamed, and BEHOLD, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven (dividing light from darkness, etc.)

Filling: And BEHOLD, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! (beginning with the governing lights)

Future: And BEHOLD, the Lord stood above it and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. (entering into God’s rest) 

Jesus, as priest, king and prophet, is the entire creation in human form. At the centre of history, He is the Ethics of the Covenant given, opened and received for all humanity.

Finally, the causal connection between Jesus going to the Father and righteousness is that after He fulfilled the priestly office of atoning for sin, He ascended to rule as king in righteousness (Revelation 4-5 shows Him ascending as the “firstfruits lamb” and opening the New Covenant scroll, after which four gospel horsemen ride out into the Land). He did not return with tablets of stone, as did Moses, but instead sent His Spirit. The Spirit “convicted the world of righteousness” through the testimony of the apostles, which remains the primary channel, or “opening” of God’s work today.

Notice that Jesus’ kingdom began at Pentecost, where the tongues of fire correspond to the “seeing” of the Lampstand. Jesus sat at the Father’s right hand, as Joseph was Pharaoh’s right hand man, and Daniel was Nebuchadnezzar’s right hand man, with “all power.” He is the Covenant Head, the “Forming.” Filled with His Spirit, His people are made the “righteousness” of God, men and women who are qualified to speak as prophets.

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.

“Jacob didn’t steal the future. He rescued it from a Man who put food first and whose eyes were not yet opened.”

James Jordan has done the Church a great service by rehabilitating the reputations of Noah the drunk, Abraham the liar, Jacob the swindler and Moses the murderer. He has shown us that the context of these so-called sins and crimes mean that they are nothing of the sort. [1] By this, I don’t mean “cultural context” but Covenant context. The reason these great men of God (and their wonderful women) get such a bad rap is because their stories are treated like a bunch of separate things that occurred, from which we must draw obvious and disconnected morals, rather than a single narrative begun in Genesis 1.

Matthew Mason recently wrote about Jacob’s being, not a quiet man, but a blameless man. [2] This puts him in the company of Noah, Abraham, Job, and other “sacrificial” men, men to whom God entrusted the future of His Covenant. The failure by translators to recognize the ongoing theme of blamelessness has meant that Jacob is seen as sneaky and perhaps a little effeminate. He is a mother’s boy who gets his way through deceit. In fact, Jacob was a man who outsmarted the serpent at every turn with the wisdom of God. He was “wise as a serpent” but “harmless as a dove.” Esau, who rolled the sins of Adam (gave up his birthright for food), Cain (desired to murder his priestly brother) and the sons of Seth (married idolatrous women) into one single life, got his animals around the wrong way. Worse, his blind father was willing to hand the future of the Covenant, and therefore the world, over to this entirely “natural” man.

In the account of Jacob and Esau, there’s also a very strong “architectural” undercurrent as well, and it has to do with the Tabernacle. Esau is the Red Man outside the tent (the bloody Bronze Altar, symbolizing the Land). Esau smells like the field. He is of the earth, earthy. He is a hunter, a man of blood (“Cain” means “spear”), and cares nothing for the future. Jacob listens to his mother, who isn’t a deceived Eve. She understands that Isaac’s blindness is more than simply natural. Jacob is the Bridal Man inside the tent, the Incense Altar. Like Adam, he is clothed in animal skin to “deceive the curse.” It is a miniature Day of Atonement, goats and all, and the blessing of Isaac is not squandered as it would have been. Like Adam, Jacob was a man with the Bride inside.

The Old Testament gives us quite a few “bridal” men, that is, Adams who have an Eve inside ready for God to construct in history. David is one (music is bridal). I believe Jacob is another. He is the one who ascends as a Covenant sacrifice. His serpentine wisdom is also “bridal,” an eye for eye judgment upon the various serpents he encounters as he is qualified by God. Both brothers ended up with two wives (like Lamech) but only one brother concerned himself with God. Jacob didn’t steal the future. He rescued it from a Man who put food first and whose eyes were not yet opened.

______________________________________
[1] Jordan’s Primeval Saints is a good place to start.
[2] Matthew Mason, Jacob was a ___________ Man.

In the pattern from Abraham to Joshua, Joseph is the firstfruits. He ascends to the court of the Most High and opens the mystery. In the later pattern, the one who opens the mystery is Daniel. Joseph converted Pharaoh, and Daniel converted Nebuchadnezzar.

What is really interesting is the significance of Daniel’s rule as senior advisor in Babylon for the leaders of Judah. James Jordan writes:

It is clear that the various letters sent by the prophets to the various nations were sent out when they were written. We also see that Jeremiah wrote up all his early prophecies and sent them to the king at one point (Jeremiah 36). There is no reason to doubt that the material in the book of Daniel was completed by the death of Daniel, which came shortly after the Persians took over the Babylonian empire.

We can know for certain that chapters 7–12 had been written by that time because Daniel himself was the author. Chapter 4 had been written and circulated by Nebuchadnezzar in the midst of his reign. In the light of this, to assert that chapters 1–3, 5–6 were written much later is specious. The information in each of these chapters was of supreme importance to Jeremiah and the others of the Remnant living in Jerusalem and Israel. We know that letters were sent back and forth (Jeremiah 29:1, 25). Common sense tells us that the events in these chapters were written up and sent out for the Jews to read, even if such initial writeups were not the same as the highly polished literary accounts that we find in the book of Daniel.

Chapters 1–3 describe events that took place right at the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. The events of chapters 1 and 2 were completed in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. The events of chapter 3 likely happened shortly thereafter, probably in the third or fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is fifteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Consider the likelihood that these three stories were in circulation for ten or more years before Jerusalem was destroyed. For ten years Jeremiah and his associates were able to tell the citizens of Jerusalem and Israel that God was working to convert the Babylonian empire. For ten years it was clear that the Babylonian empire was ruled by faithful believers. Those Jews who refused to obey God by submitting to Nebuchadnezzar were totally without excuse. They could not argue that to submit to Babylon was to submit to a heathen power, because Babylon was clearly being ruled by believers.

Their rejection of Babylon and of Nebuchadnezzar was a rejection of Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Yahweh. [2]

What is really interesting is Jordan’s observation that Joseph and Daniel in the courts of emperors prefigured Christ in the court of the Father. The implications are huge for our interpretation of the Revelation and the Jewish War. The mystery Jesus opened was the mystery of the Gospel, and this is the subject of Revelation 5.

If all this makes sense to you, get a hold of Jordan’s Revelation lectures as well as his commentary on Daniel.

_______________________________
[1] See Bible Matrix p. 115 and p. 183. Notice that Jacob and Joseph also had dreams at Ascension within certain “matrix” cycles, Jacob a vision of angels ascending (with his own head as the head of the sacrifice on a stone altar) and Joseph of sheaves (Firstfruits) and then Sun, Moon and Stars (Pentecost) as two witnesses.
[2] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall, pp. 10-11.
See also Daniel the Destroyer and King Neb’s New Covenant.

“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.)

James Jordan has a great little commentary on Proverbs 30, the words of Agur (“sojourner”). Some believe the author of this chapter is Jacob. Jordan runs with this possibility and makes some wonderful observations.

The true son of God – or daughter of God – is a sojourner. That was true of Christ Jesus, and it is also true of us. For this reason, the proverbs of Agur the Sojourner are most relevant to us. These Sojourning Proverbs have a common theme, and that theme, announced in the opening paragraph, is humility. These are the proverbs of a man who learned wisdom by practicing humility…

The words of the Sojourner (Jacob?) the son of Yahweh,
blessed is He, the burden:
The man declares, “I have wearied myself, O God!
I have wearied myself, O God, and I have come to an end!
For I am more stupid than any man,
And I do not have the understanding of a man.”

Compare this with what Jacob said to Pharaoh: “The days of the years of my sojourning are 130; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, nor have they reached the days of the years of the life of my fathers during the days of their sojourning” (Gen. 47:9).

I’m going to assume in these studies that these proverbs were written by Jacob. They were written at the end of his life, when he had “come to an end.” It is possible that there is a better solution to the puzzle of the opening verses of Proverbs 30, and if that is indeed the case, it will not change very much of what we shall find in the rest of the chapter. Whether Jacob wrote this chapter or not, it is certainly the case that Jacob’s life illustrates what we find here. The applications to us today will be the same in any event.

Notice Jacob’s [or Agur's] remarkable humility at the end of his life. Age and experience have not made him arrogant and proud. Rather, as Jacob considers things, he says that he is stupider than anyone he knows. He does not have the understanding that we can expect of any ordinary person. He has not learned wisdom (v. 3).

Have you ever felt this way? I believe that “the more you know, the more you don’t know.” The word “sophomore” means “wise fool,” or “sophisticated moron.” It is used of young people who think they have learned wisdom, but who obviously have not. In fact, the wiser we become, the more aware we are of how little we know. The more we learn about God, the greater is our awareness of the tremendous depth of His infinity. The older we grow in Christ, the more child-like we become-not childish in the sense of irresponsibility, but child-like in the sense of wonder and humility. Remember, the book of Proverbs is addressed to children (Prov. 1: 8).

But Jacob the Sojourner knows one thing that changes everything: “But I have knowledge of the Holy One” (v. 3; compare the old man’s knowledge in 1 John). Jacob may be worn out with living. He may feel defeated in his attempts to “exercise dominion.” He may be overwhelmed by his lack of personal wisdom; but there is one thing he does know: He knows God. And he knows that knowing God is the beginning of true wisdom (Prov. 1:7).

Knowing God makes for humility. Job 38-42 expand on what we find in verse 4 here. The questions Agur asks, such as “Who has gathered the wind in His fist?” are just like the questions God asks Job. As God humbled Job by revealing Himself, so Agur expresses humility before the knowledge of the God who created and reigns in heaven and earth.

What Job realized and what Agur realized, and what we must realize, is that we don’t need to understand everything. We don’t need to understand everything because we have God as our Father and He understands everything. Moreover, we don’t have to do everything. If we are tired, and can’t go any farther, it’s all right, because God is our Father, and He can do everything. The tired Sojourner can rest in the comfort of God’s Omnipotence.

James B. Jordan, Advice From a Sojourner, Humility and Dominion in Proverbs 30. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com

The Mosaic dietary laws were temporary. Just as a Nazirite made a temporary vow for the purpose of sanctification for holy war, so Israel’s purpose as a nation of holy warriors included certain abstinences prescribed by God. Once the war was over, the prohibitions were removed. “Bridal food” (the Feast of Tabernacles) was back on the menu in the first century.

The Nazirite vow was a symbolic form of death and resurrection, of the bridegroom going into the grave (short hair), slaying the serpents, and emerging from the chamber with His bride (long hair), whom He then presented to the Father. [1] The prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge was a temporary one. It began Adam’s holy war, but he broke the vow, failed to rescue the bride and was expelled from the Lord’s table. [2]

Jesus Himself said He would not drink wine until He drank it in the kingdom, after His holy battle. Although there were personal prefigurements of it (the vinegar, and most likely meals with the disciples after His resurrection included wine), that second “bridal” drinking is history, the wedding supper of the Lamb in AD70.

Christians, as holy warriors, abstain from things for the purpose of intercession — holy war — and then return to the “kingdom blessings.” We fast for others, and we fast for the purpose of holy war against our own members, bodily discipline. [3] But the death is always for the purpose of resurrection. God is a phenomenal foodie. As Robert Farrar Capon wrote, God made onions because He likes them.

So, the claim that a Mosaic diet is healthier has no basis in the Bible. In fact, such a view is the result of imposing the modern worldview upon Scripture, a worldview which denies that every part of Creation has a message for us. James Jordan writes:

…the Old Testament laws are being misused by persons who, with the best of intentions, want to find health hints in the Bible. My hope is that these studies will help redirect the focus of this concern and put matters back into perspective. The food law of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper, and sickness and health are indeed tied to its faithful observance (1Cor. 11:30). Sickness and health were related to the dietary laws of Moses for the same reason, but that reason is the Spiritual efficacy of the sacrament, not the biological mechanics of the human body.

The hygienic misuse of these laws arises, as do other misinterpretations, because of the pervasive influence of non-Christian philosophical viewpoints in our culture. It is clear that the laws of clean and unclean in the Bible are symbolic in nature. Peter’s vision in Acts 10 establishes a symbolic connection between the unclean animals and the Gentile nations, an association already set forth in Leviticus 20:22-26. No one denies this, but modern Christians are not accustomed to Biblical symbolism, with the result that full justice is not done to the laws of uncleanness.

Let’s take an example that will show how differently people in the ancient world thought from the way we think today. This story will show us that if we are to understand Biblical symbolism, we shall have to learn to think in Biblical categories, and set aside our modern worldview.

When Jacob returned to the promised land after his sojourn in Mesopotamia, he was met by the Angel of the Lord. God wrestled with him all night, and when the Angel “saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him” (Gen. 32:25). This dislocation, with Jacob’s subsequent limp, constituted a sign of Jacob’s victory. He had wrestled “with God and with men” and had prevailed (Gen. 32:28). Like a father training his child, so God had wrestled with Jacob for nearly a hundred years, using Esau, Isaac, and Laban as His tools to strengthen His son for service. Now, as a token of His grace, He gave Jacob a limp.

What does this mean? For an explanation we can look to Genesis 3:15, where we are told that the serpent’s head will be crushed, while the heel of the Seed will be bruised. It is possible to trace this imagery through the scripture, and what emerges is that because of sin, all men must suffer some wound. The head wound is for God’s enemies, while a mere foot wound is for His friends. Accordingly, Jacob’s limp was a sign of his victory and salvation, a sign that, with God’s grace, he had crushed the serpents in his life.

Now, would it occur to you or me to draw any culinary conclusions from this episode? Doubtless not. Yet we read in Genesis 32:32, “Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip.” Notice what the verse does say:  It does not say that God commanded the Israelites to memorialize this incident by refraining from eating this muscle. Rather, it says that the sons of Israel drew an inference from the event: They inferred that it would be improper to eat this particular muscle.

Does this inference make sense to us?  Does it go along with the way we twentieth-century people think? Clearly not.

My point is that twentieth-century readers are not at home in the worldview of the Bible. We do not understand how people thought and reasoned, because we do not share their presuppositions and outlook. The result is that we are prone to misinterpret the meaning of significant parts of Scripture, and this is particularly true of the Mosaic dietary laws. If we are to understand the real meaning of the Levitical code, we must acquire the mindset of the ancient Israelite, which is the mindset of the Bible. When such passages as Genesis 32:32 begin to make sense to us, we will be in a position to investigate Leviticus 11, but unless we become familiar with the “inner logic” of Genesis 32:32, the other dietary laws in the Bible will continue to be somewhat obscure to us. [4]

______________________________________
[1] See The Fruitful Field.
[2] See Touch Not, Taste Not, Handle Not and The Greatest Consumer.
[3] I have summarised Arthur Wallis’ book on fasting here [PDF]. See also Fasting as Sacrament.
[4] James B. Jordan, Studies in Food and Faith. Document included in the Complete James Jordan set.