At that time the Lord said to Joshua,
“Make flint knives and circumcise
the sons of Israel a second time.”
(Joshua 5:2)

Was Israel disobedient in its failure to circumcise every male born in the wilderness? The Lord never chastised them for this. If this lapse in the practice of circumcision was in the plan of God, what was the purpose of that plan? The example which first comes to mind is the circumcision of the firstborn son of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26.

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!

Atheists love to embarrass Christians with a snide reference to the story of Elisha setting two bears upon some helpless children. What nobody, even Christians, seem to get is the “Covenant significance” of all the players in the story, harking back to Moses. The prophets were, after all, God’s “repo men.” [1]

[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!

Another chapter from Bible Matrix III:

Read “Our God Is Coming.”

[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?

Because circumcision was Adamic, that is, priestly. As James Jordan notes, there are kings and queens, prophets and prophetesses, but no priestesses. Not a one. Eve could not serve in the Tabernacle or Temple because it was not yet safe. The serpent had not been crushed. Satan still stood, bloodthirsty as ever, as an accuser in the court of God (as Joshua the High Priest discovered).

Yet, outside the tent of death lived a (symbolic) resurrection body, twelve tribes, twelve stars, twelve constellations—the glorious Warrior Bride, a city of living stones gathered around the Lamb. Greater Eve didn’t see the blood either shed or presented. She saw only the memorial, the fragrant smoke. She herself, as a body raised from the grave, was a memorial to the blood shed in Egypt.

The blue-tasseled robe was a memorial. The command to wear blue tassels does not appear in Exodus or Leviticus, but in Numbers, after Israel has broken the Law (many times) and temporarily forfeited the Promised Land. What was Israel to remember?

The tasseled robe was a reminder of holiness. In a veiled way, they were “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.” But at this “Mosaic” stage, the clothing reminded each adult of his or her vow.

So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do.”

In fact, the people repeat this vow twice. The Law required two witnesses (and, of course, the passage follows the Covenant pattern!) They did it consciously. They did it as representatives of their children and their animals, those who could not take the vow. The “robe of righteousness” called them back to the “words of the Lord and all the judgments” to which they had agreed. It was not only glorious, and made a public testimony out of being an Israelite, but it was also a mnemonic device. It called Israel to remember, not the circumcision of every male born in Abraham’s house, but the conscious vow made to obey the Laws of Moses. If we had to correspond this robe to anything under the New Covenant, it would not be circumcision but baptism.

When to Trash a Baptism

Toby Sumpter tweeted: “Sometimes a pastor needs to take a man’s baptism and trash it and bury it in front of him and only then will it become true.” This statement comes from the frontline of ministry, and out of a pastor’s heart. Toby has an excellent blog post on this subject here, and I don’t mean to take anything away from that.

But trashing someone’s baptism means holding somebody accountable, calling him back to his vow. We could say this about the fulfilment of any vow, but paedobaptism plays games with what a vow actually is. You can call someone back to their baptism only if they were conscious at their baptism. Otherwise you are suing someone based on a contract they didn’t sign.

A Seal Upon Covenant Children?

How many men, circumcised in their infancy, can recall their circumcision? This seems a fair question, but it assumes that baptism performs a similar role to circumcision in marking out “Covenant children.” It’s amazing how paedobaptists will tell me that baptism is New Covenant circumcision when it suits them, and also tell me that baptism isn’t a New Covenant circumcision when it suits them. So, which is it?

Well, neither circumcision nor baptism marked out Covenant children. Circumcision was always genealogical. It was Adamic. Like the Tabernacle, it was a substitutionary death on behalf of Eve. It was about males, not infants. So, even Israel did not have a rite related to childhood. Paedobaptism not only misunderstands baptism, it misrepresents circumcision in order to use it as support for a misguided tradition.

Israel’s Conscious Vow

Israel made a conscious vow in the wilderness. Did that involve circumcision? No.

It was circumcision that made them Israel — a separate nation. But what is very interesting is that the Covenant vow took place in the wilderness, and no infant males were circumcised for around four decades, until the next generation reached Jericho (Joshua 5). So the corresponding of circumcision with Covenant accountability for individuals (a la Doug Wilson) is not even a long shot. Were there no “Covenant children” until after the death of Moses? Of course there were! God held the “circumcised” generation accountable to the vow they made at Sinai as adults, males and females. The Covenant responsibility fell upon the parents who made the vow to teach their children — even when their boys were uncircumcised!

God most certainly judged the patriarchs for sin, but the Law of Moses was not in force. There were no stonings, no lepers exiled mandatorily outside the camp, until the Law of Moses. The Law of the Covenant required a conscious vow. The blue-tasseled robe was a reminder of that vow. They didn’t put these robes on any babies, let alone the male infants. We know this because the tassels on the robe served a deliberate purpose. The robe was a call to a circumcised heart, a circumcision made without hands.

This “investiture” was a circumcision of heart, not flesh. It was to signify the imputed righteousness of the sacrificial, priestly people. In Exodus 24, Moses and the elders ascended the mountain and saw the Lord on the crystal sea. That’s what baptism pictures—mediators. The children of Israel were at the bottom of the mountain. The “baptized” elders mediated for Israel, and, in turn, all Israel carried out this same mediatory role for all nations. As glorious Israel was an outcome of the sacrifices, so the bridal robes were an “outcome” of a hidden circumcision. Every Israelite was part of the Warrior Bride, mediating for the Gentiles.

(Of course, all Israel was “baptized” in the Red Sea, but not as individuals. They were baptized as one flesh in one event. That’s not the case with Christians. I have covered this elsewhere on this blog.)

Now, I must say here that if somebody could show me some good arguments for paedobaptism, I’d publicly apologize for my rants, and very likely become the most ardent paedobaptist the world has yet seen. But I’ve discussed this with even the big guns, and so far, if they have any ammo left at all, either they can’t be bothered shooting it or they are afraid it might bounce off. That probably sounds like hubris, but it isn’t. How about starting with this fact that the first generation of “Covenant boys” were uncircumcised. Think of this as another gauntlet thrown down. Even I’m getting tired of discussing this, but I reckon it has been worth it. I’ve been thrown some curly ones, but there’s not a single doctrinal or typological hole left through which Christening can be snuck.

Confession and Confessionalism

So we have no business telling everyone we are bap-cising the hearts of our offspring before they hear the gospel.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has some good things to say about baptism, but I find it ironic that a confession confers Covenant accountability upon those who cannot confess. Consulting the Reformers before we consult Moses and the Prophets to make sense of the New Testament is replicating Talmudism. There’s no support, whatever the claims, for infant baptism in either the Old or New Covenant Scriptures. WCF XXVIII: III, IV and VI are made up out of whole cloth.

Aligning baptism with circumcision demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both baptism and circumcision. How many Israelite women could recall their circumcision?

Cursed Confessors

A pastor cannot call a saint back to his or her baptism if it did not include a “legal” Covenant confession, their public witness. It makes no sense at all to lay Covenant responsibilities upon newborns. Not even Israel did that! Who died in the wilderness? It was the ones who took the vow — first, those who worshiped the golden calf, and then the rest over the next few decades. Only two people survived the threshing, Joshua and Caleb. And who made it out? The children of those who died, and it seems that all the males under 40 were uncircumcised. What were these people called back to in the book of Deuteronomy? Not Abrahamic circumcision. While they were separated from Gentiles geographically it served no function. It seems one could leave Israel and not suffer death for leaving (unlike some churches!). Circumcision was only what made them a separate “flesh.” They were called to remember the Law under which their parents made the original vow at Sinai.

The men, boys and infants were circumcised outside of Jericho. It wasn’t an infant thing. It was a male thing (generation). Just as baptism isn’t an infant thing. It is a believer thing (regeneration). Paedobaptism screws up the message of both these signs.

Nailing the Colors

A baptism that isn’t a conscious change of allegiance, doesn’t nail new colours to the mast, doesn’t rub non-Christians up the wrong way or scare them or leave them in awe, isn’t a baptism. The only way to trash somebody’s Christening is to actually baptize them as a public witness to their confession.

A reasonably close look at the text makes it inescapable. A very close analysis makes it inexcusable, especially once we are versed in the literary mechanics of the Bible Matrix.

Each stanza will be followed by some comments on the types the structure reveals.

Creation – Sabbath rest

Now, brethren, concerning
…..the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
……….and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
……………not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled,
……….either by spirit or by word or by letter,
…..as if from us,
as though the day of Christ had come.

The first stanza concerns an initial rest, to be interrupted by the Lord in order to bring a greater rest, matching it chiastically at the end of the cycle. We observe this imperfect rest in the first chapter of Zechariah, and indeed on Day 1 of Creation.

Notice the “gathering” is at Firstfruits. The first century martyrs would ascend as Jesus did, being the second approach of the High Priest on this first century “Day of Atonement.” (Israel’s entire history follows the festal pattern. See Bible Matrix p. 191.) See One Taken, One Left Behind.

The trouble is at Testing. Would they believe the Lampstand eyes of the gospel, or what they saw with their own eyes? Spirit, word and letter seem to be a three-level construct. At this point in the cycle, it is a house of resurrection, not death (that’s line 3). “As if from us” is aligned with the Covenant oath. Is the letter true or false? As a priestly people, filled with the Spirit (an internal Urim and Thummim) they were to judge.

The cycle ends with the rest into which they would enter, the heavenly country.

Division – Torn Veil – Passover darkness

Let no one deceive you by any means; (Transcendence)
…..for unless the apostasy comes first, (Hierarchy – Division)
……….and shall be revealed (Ethics – Lampstand)
…..the man of sin, (Sanctions – Mediator)
the son of perdition, (Ironic Succession)

This cycle is five-fold, a Covenant scroll that is yet to be opened. It is yet veiled. Notice the apostasy at Division. It would be like the exodus in its violence. The man of sin is at Day 6, the false Herodian priest-king construct, which supports Jordan’s assertion that this man is truly an Adam, not a Roman emperor. See The Man of Sin. And “Succession” makes sense of the reference to “son.” The Greek word translated “perdition” literally means “cut off.” They wanted to maintain outward circumcision, so their city would be circumcised as a new Jericho. All flesh would be cut off as an ironic firstfruits of the new Land.

Now, you can argue that this process of interpretation is entirely arbitrary, and I am reading too much into a few words, but I believe the Covenant structure of this stanza is undeniable. Don’t let me keep you from your systematic textual impotence and your formless, one-eyed, hermeneutical fantasy. This is not just Paul. It is the Spirit of God, and His words always blow us away.

Ascension (Altar) – Herods receive kingdom from Satan (cf. Matt 4)

who opposes
…..and exalts himself
……….above all that is called God
……………or that is worshiped,
……….so that he sits as God
…..in the temple of God,
presenting himself as God.

Ascension brings us to the “Levitical” stage of this passage, the house of God and the High Priesthood. “Opposes” appears where the Ark of the Covenant should be. This man pretends to uphold Moses yet he opposes Moses. He exalts himself at line 2, which the spot where real men of God fall on their faces. “Above” is the Ascension line within this first Ascension stanza. This man is climbing God’s Land-mountain-Altar un-covered, exposing his nakedness.

“Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.” (Exodus 20:26)

Only priests of Baal elevate themselves above the Altar. The Jacob-stairways of the “ascension” offering are for ministering angels purified by holy fire. The picture is of a man who believes he is a holy sacrifice and needs no sinless substitute. The priests of Baal cut themselves, and so did the post-Pentecost Judaizers. Paul refers to them as the “concision” or “mutilation.” But no flesh can be justified without death and resurrection by the Spirit of God. And the Judaizers repeatedly blasphemed the Spirit of Pentecost.

The word “worshipped” means “objects of veneration,” “whatever is religiously honoured, an object of worship of temples, altars, statues, idolatrous images” (Strong’s).  This “priest-king” -hood believed it was above Yahweh and indeed all the gods of the nations. But in doing so, they made the Temple into a golden calf, a house that contained no graven images but itself became a graven image, the “image of the Beast,” speaking in the place of the graven words.

“So that he sits as God” occurs in this passage at the same point at which Moses sat enthroned on a stone, his arms lifted up by a priest (Aaron) and a king (Hur, from Judah). This is Maturity, the place of eldership in God’s court and the role of prophetic witness to kings. But these men sitting in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2) would not defeat the oncoming Amalekite hordes. Like Saul, they had conspired with Amalek. Worse, they had handed their precious Joshua over to Amalek for execution, with His arms lifted up.

The final line is supposed to be the enthronement of Adam as the perfected Covenant vassal, a man entirely subject to God’s Law to whom history and kingdom can be handed — because he has pure hands. But, as with Israel’s kings before the captivity, the Herods were kings in the way Gentile kings were: their gods were subject to them.

I hope you can see by now that this passage, though written to Gentiles, has a Jewish context. In fact, it is screaming at us if we have eyes to see.

To be continued…

___________________________________

Artwork: Herod’s Temple exterior by Abe Goolsby from the HCSB Study Bible. Check out his design process here.

The Bible Matrix is founded in the structures laid down in Genesis 1, but in no way is the Bible repetitious. James Jordan observes that the Bible is “front-loaded” with an incredible amount of information that we deem mostly obsolete, and yet we don’t understand the Bible because we haven’t taken the time necessary to become familiar with this material. What occurs later always acknowledges what has gone before, not just in content but in form as well, in literary and historical structure.

But what makes the later Scriptures diverse from the earlier ones is God’s process of communicating with familiar forms but using them in new ways. For instance, the visions of Zechariah follow the Creation week, yet the order of the Tabernacle furniture in this new visionary “week” has been shifted around to make a point, a point we miss if we aren’t familiar with the original form. Jesus and Paul and John do exactly the same thing. And so does all good literature. Robert Alter writes:

“The process of literary creation, as criticism has clearly recognized from the Russian Formalists onward, is an unceasing dialiectic between the necessity to use established forms in order to be able to communicate coherently, and the necessity to break and remake those forms because they are arbitrary restrictions and because what is merely repeated automatically no longer conveys a message.

‘The greater the probability of a symbol’s occurrence in any given situation,’ E. H. Gombrich observes in Art and Illusion, ‘the smaller will be its information content. Where we can anticipate, we need not listen.’ Reading any body of literature involves a specialized mode of perception in which every culture trains its members from childhood. As modern readers of the Bible, we need to relearn something of this mode of perception that was second nature to the original audiences. Instead of relegating every perceived recurrence in the text to the limbo of duplicated sources of fixed folkloric archetypes, we may begin to see that the resurgence of certain pronounced patterns at certain narrative junctures was conventionally anticipated, even counted on, and that against that ground of anticipation the biblical authors set words, motifs, themes, personages, and actions into an elaborate dance of significant innovation. For much of art lies in the shiftin aperture between the shadowy foreimage in the anticipating mind of the observer and the realized revelatory image in the work itself, and that is what we must learn to perceive more finely in the Bible.” (The Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 62.)

This is the reason that the New Covenant was just like every previous Covenant, and at the same time nothing like every previous Covenant. Those enlightened by the Spirit of God could see the historical, literary and spiritual continuity, and they became the historical, literary and spiritual continuity, the Covenant Succession. Those who were enlightened but blasphemed the Light were cut out of history with a sharp knife, like a foreskin, like Jericho.

Modern literary critics fail to realize that God’s making and breaking isn’t limited to literary forms. The familiar forms of “Jewish thought” were made to be broken and remade in Christ, and now utilized by God in an ever-increasing number of new ways as He brings humanity to the wisdom of maturity. The Word never returns void.

To use a musical analogy, if we go back to the Torah to practice our scales, we will better understand the rich symphonies in the prophets and the apostles — and not just the fragmentary allusions, but also the significance of the allusions in flow of the structures. That is what the Bible Matrix is all about.

“Now Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it for herself on the rock, from the beginning of harvest until the late rains poured on them from heaven. And she did not allow the birds of the air to rest on them by day nor the beasts of the field by night.” 2 Samuel 21:10

NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN REMIXED AND INCLUDED IN GOD’S KITCHEN.

At the heart of the Bible Matrix is Testing. Although all the major narratives follow the pattern, many of the minor ones do too. If Adam had not failed his initial “qualifying round,” he would have progressed to the next stage of dominion. We know this because we see others later in the Bible move beyond this first round to greater glory. For instance, Daniel’s first challenge mirrors Adam’s challenge exactly. He was offered kingdom food and refused it.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

_____________________________________
[1] Notice that God’s purifying judgment upon King Nebuchadnezzar was to make him a kind of Covenant-curse-hybrid: both a beast and a bird. He was being transformed into a guardian for God’s people—a cherubim.
[2] In the Creation week, God formed the house over three days, then filled it over the next three. The filling begins at Day 4, feast 4, Pentecost, Testing.

or Jesus, the Destroying Angel

James Jordan says the Revelation is like one of those old human anatomy teaching aids, the ones with layers of acetate. One starts with the skeleton and overlays the nervous system, arteries, organs, etc. They are all connected and yet each is a system that is individually identifiable. This is literature that is irreducibly complex.

For this to be possible in Biblical literature, many elements must have more than one function (as in our bodies). A simple illustration would be the structural significance of the book of Judges. In the slavery to Sabbath structure (the Dominion pattern), Judges is a sort of “Day 7.” But as Israel’s history progresses, this stage in the story becomes a “Day 3,” the (Promised) Land that ascended out of the waters of the nations, followed by the Davidic kings as the “Day 4″ ruling lights.

As a unit of seven letters, chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation serve multiple functions. The imagery involved is highly compressed, extremely dense: it has incredible gravity in every sense of the word. (See Totus Christus for a summary of Jordan’s exposition, or better yet, get the lectures. The depth of what is happening here will blow you away.)

Very often, from Call / Creation to Ascension, the Covenant Head has his own sevenfold pattern. He becomes the bread and wine on the table. But in a larger structure, this becomes Ascension (step 3) as the greater heptamerous pattern stretches out to the final feast of the Head and body at God’s table. We see this in John’s gospel (see Stirring the Waters.)

Revelation 1-5 are this initial structure. Jesus is Day 1, and John is “passed over” as Day 2, and exalted as “Day 3.” The seven Lampstand churches are the ruling lights at the centre of this pattern, and the ascended Christ as firstfruits Lamb, taking the throne, is the culmination of this section.

But the other facet of the letters becomes apparent as we move further out. The seven churches become those who are behind the door in the Passover (step 2) in a pattern that stretches from chapter 1 to chapter 11. Jesus is the destroying angel passing over them, passing judgment upon His people and correcting them in love. He is the blood on the door in the Holy Place (Ark = Light), and they are the human “furniture” (Lampstand = Lights).

This supports Jordan’s premise that the rest of the Revelation is the eighth letter. The Herods’ Jerusalem wanted to be a new beginning, an “eighth day.” All of the faults in the infant churches are shown to be full-grown in the Greater Jezebel.

This “eighth letter” describes her destruction. It is the New Covenant. As the Lamb breaks the seals, the Covenant blessings and curses plague and plunder the Land. To some, the scroll tastes of life, and to others, of death. It is the sword Jesus came to bring. He is the Destroying Angel who divides the living from the dead.

There would be No More Sacrifice For Sins. She would not be passed over as the Hebrews in Egypt, but passed through as the city of Jericho—totally devoted to the consuming fire. The new Israel would witness the old Holy Place’s de-Creation and its Lampstand being snuffed out. (See Thief in the Night.)

Part 1 is here.

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.” But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They said to Him, “We are able.” So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” (Matthew 20:20-23)

When we say “Amen,” we’d better mean it. It is a reception of the Covenant, binding us to it legally for better or worse. Ray Sutton writes:

The covenant is established by the reception of these sanctions through an oath before witnesses. First, the oath has dual sanctions, blessing and cursing, giving the covenant terms of unconditionality.

When the Bible speaks of faith, it means faithfulness. Man is required to persevere! If he fails to do so, the oath that God takes on Himself will hit the participant in the form of a curse. Along with the terms of unconditionality, the covenant is both promissory and legal. Grace and law are not in conflict.

Second, the oath is received through the consignment of a selfmaledictory oath. God pledges Himself to the participants, attaching blessings and cursings. When man places his “amen” on the covenant,
he receives what God has done. He says “amen” through certain symbols, and has them applied to his household.

Finally, witnesses are required for the ratification of the covenant. The witnesses are heavenly and earthly when the covenant is cut. They verify that an actual covenant has been created. Without them, the covenant is not official. [1]

Sutton also comments that animal sacrifices were only a temporary means of averting the malediction of God. In the Covenant with Abraham, the Lord promised His own eventual judgment. But, of course, that’s not where it ends. That’s just where it begins to get interesting.

In the Revelation, Jesus has a sharp two-edged sword coming out of His mouth. We know this is His Word, but that is a typically short-sighted modern interpretation. James Jordan sees it as something far more interesting: an “inverted realisation of the self-maledictory oath.”

In other words, He swallowed the sword-water in place of the unfaithful bride. [2] Being totally faithful, the sword that went into the sacrifice to cut it is now coming out of the resurrected body. This is inherent in the Bible Matrix pattern. At Passover, we are under the sword but it slays the substitute instead (Exodus). At Atonement, we are under the sword again, but it is a knighthood (Joshua). It was angels who slew the firstborn in Egypt, but in Joshua the sword was given to men. Men did the slaying, and not just the firstborn: every man, woman, child and animal in Jericho was to be slaughtered, being the “firstfruits” of the Land.

At Pentecost, the disciples became apostles when they passed under the sword, tongues of flame. Then Revelation presents them as warriors with flames coming out of their mouths (Revelation 9:17-18). They went on to liberate Jerusalem, saving only “Rahab” and her family.

How does all this apply to us?

Firstly, at salvation we are baptized into Jesus’ death. We swallow the sword. The Word cuts us to the heart and we die. But we die with a heart that is circumcised. We are united with the Head and enthroned with Christ. Then, and only then, can we be united with—baptized into—the body. This is our promise of resurrection. We become part of God’s government of elders on earth. Infant baptism is thus unnatural—a breach birth.

Secondly, in our worship service, our corporate confession and forgiveness is where we pass under the sword. This is our baptism into Jesus’ death. After Communion–our corporate “resurrection”—we are again handed the sword to preach to every creature. The sword coming out of our mouths is not the Law of Moses. The self-maledictory oath, our Amen, has been inverted. It is the Law slain and resurrected, the Spirit-Law of the Gospel that cuts men to the heart, circumcising them. The Spirit fills them. But it also slays everyone without the mark of the Man in linen. It is the “liberating curse.”

We see the same thing in Zechariah 5, concerning the flying scroll. Peter Leithart writes:

Verse 3 is difficult to translate, and is somewhat surprising.  The scroll represents, the angel says, the curse going throughout the land, but the effect of the curse in verse 3 is not negative and destructive but purgative.  Everyone who steals, the angel says, will be “freed” or “exempted.”  The verb means “be innocent” (Judges 15:2) or “remain unpunished” (Jeremiah 25:29).  At times, it can have a more negative connotation – a city is “freed” of people in Isaiah 3:28.  But the general use suggests a redemptive theme: This is a liberating curse. [3]

Just as the Lord set the captives free from Babylonian idolatry, Jesus also came to set the captives free. He made the harlot drink the cup to the dregs. The process wasn’t finished until the animal sacrifices, carried on by defiant Jews, were ended forever in the destruction of the Herods’ “house” in AD70. Amen.

Sabbath – “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD
has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor;

……….Passover – He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
……….to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening
……….of the prison to those who are bound;

………………..Firstfruits – To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
………………..and the day of vengeance of our God;

…………………………Pentecost (the Spirit) – To comfort all who mourn,
…………………………to console those who mourn in Zion,

………………..Trumpets (resurrection) – To give them beauty for ashes,
………………..The oil of joy for mourning,

……….Atonement – The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;

Booths – That they may be called trees of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.” [4]

________________________________________________
[1] Ray Sutton, That You May Prosper, pp. 94-95.
[2] See Jesus With Long Hair.
[3] Peter Leithart, Zechariah 5:1-4.
[4] The reason Jesus did not read this whole passage is NOT because it was going to take over 2000 years to fulfil upon the Jews. He probably did read the whole passage. Luke possibly leaves the rest out because the remainder of the account follows the same pattern as first century history. See Totus Christus p. 323-324 to see what I mean. And see here for more on Jesus and the scroll.

Ark (Word) – Creation
Jesus answered and said to them, ”Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard:

Veil (torn!) – Division
that the blind see,

Altar (new four-cornered mediatorial Land from the Sea) – Ascension
the lame walk,

Lampstand (new rulers) – Testing
the lepers are cleansed,

Incense (new eldership) – Maturity
the deaf hear,

Laver (Jordan) – Conquest
the dead are raised,

Shekinah (Rest) – Glorification
the poor have the gospel preached to them.

I thought the lepers being at the centre was a bit weird, but the centre of the pattern is very often the cross or the tomb, or some symbol of these. Perhaps because the centre of the matrix is the wilderness testing (Numbers) and lepers had to live outside the city, outside the camp (Hebrews 13:13). He makes a new priesthood out of those who were the living dead, those who were excluded under the old Law. The Law itself would be slain and resurrected, transfigured by Jesus. It would become a Law (structure) filled with the Spirit (glory) that could truly impart Aaron’s priestly “clean”. The singular “Light” of the Ark (Day 1) became the plural “lights” of the Lampstand (Day 4 – Pentecost).

On point 5, Kelby commented:

“Seems to make sense, though I’m not completely sure how ‘the deaf hearing’ fits into the pattern of summoning an army/maturity/incense clouds. Seems to me a central idea of testing would be cleansing (baptism/investiture), or possibly the revelation of such a cleansing.”

I think Maturity here is a new generation of Israel who will hear a new Moses and His transfigured Law. Step 5 is Israel summoned to Moses in Deuteronomy. The clouds/swarms in the greater NT pattern are the Gentiles who joined the new Israel and rescued her from barrenness. [1] The completion of the Jew-Gentile church was Revelation’s seven trumpets to Herod’s Jerusalem.[2]

“Since they could not agree among themselves, they started leaving. But Paul said, ‘The Holy Spirit said the right thing when he sent Isaiah the prophet to tell our ancestors, “Go to these people and tell them: You will listen and listen, but never understand. You will look and look, but never see. All of you have stubborn hearts. Your ears are stopped up, and your eyes are covered. You cannot see or hear or understand. If you could, you would turn to me, and I would heal you.”‘ Paul said, ‘You may be sure that God wants to save the Gentiles! And they will listen.’”  Acts 28:25-28