“The first element of evangelism is opening a person’s eyes, that is, his desires, his sense of need. This is not done with the gospel.”

Chapter 1 of Jim Wilson’s new book, Taking Men Alive: Evangelism On The Front Lines. Available December 1.

The first element of evangelism is opening a person’s eyes, that is, his desires, his sense of need. This is not done with the gospel. Because the gospel is the light, it must come only after the eyes are open. For hundreds of years Christians have been preaching the gospel to a pagan world whose eyes are shut. The world cannot see the light, because light does not cause sight.

Have you ever told the gospel to someone in complete detail, and after you finished, the person you talked with did not have the faintest understanding of what you had so carefully and clearly explained? Why did he not understand? His eyes were closed. Have you ever been in a church where they taught the gospel for two solid years in confirmation class, and at the end of all those classes the children were confirmed and never came back again? The church is under the impression that if it shines light on kids for two years, they will see. But they do not see, because light does not open eyes.

Several decades ago, I spent two years running a bookstore for a Missouri Synod Lutheran college. During that time, I asked many students if all the wonderful truth they had learned in confirmation class had sounded like good news to them. Most of them said, “Are you kidding? Two years of classes on Saturday mornings? Does that sound like good news to you?” Most of these students were preparing for the ministry, yet the gospel still did not sound like good news to them! I found only one student in that college who said, “Oh, yes, it was wonderful. I couldn’t get enough of confirmation class.” Someone had opened her eyes so that when she got the light, it looked like light.

Since giving light to someone with closed eyes does not make them understand, when you are opening people’s eyes, you do not have to explain the gospel to them. They will not understand it, no matter how clearly you present it. Opening eyes is not about making sense. It is pre-light, pre-gospel. Opening eyes speaks to the need, the desire, the fears, the hunger, the thirst. The unbeliever does not need to understand at this point; he just needs to be left wanting whatever it is that will meet his need.

The Bible also speaks of evangelism in terms of farming. The book of Jeremiah tells us to break up the fallow ground. Jeremiah was speaking of spiritual ground here. The first step is to plow the hard ground, harrow it, soften it. Consider the Lord’s parable of the sower from Mark chapter 4: A man went forth to sow, and some seed fell on the pathway, some fell on the rocks, some fell in the weeds, and some fell on good ground. Jesus said if the seed falls on the hard path, the birds eat it. It never gets inside; the devil takes it away. If it falls in the rocks, it does not have enough moisture and dies when the summer heat comes. If it falls in the weeds, the cares of the world choke it. But when it falls on good ground, it bears much fruit.

That is what would happen if you sowed that way. However, if Christ had been giving instruction on farming, He would not have said, “Go plant some seed on the turnpike.” He would not say, “Go plant seed in the rocks.” He would say, “Plow up the ground. Pick up the rocks, turn the soil over, get it ready for the seed.” Opening eyes is like that. It is preparing the ground of a person’s heart for the gospel. Plowed, soft hearts are hungry for seed just like open eyes are hungry for light. If we make someone hungry, when the seed of the gospel (which is the Word of God) is given, it is received. There may not be a conversion right away, but you will not run into an argument or an immediate rejection of the gospel. Then you can plant the seed and reap the harvest.

Suppose I have a thousand acres of unplowed ground that I want to be wheat. I say, “I need laborers in the field, so get out there!” and you run out, jump on a combine, and start driving it around the unplowed ground. I get you back and say, “No, no, wrong! Don’t reap. Plow.”

“What do you mean, ‘Don’t reap’? There were six stalks of wheat out there, and I got them all!”

You probably did. There are always people ready. However, when the ground is hard, we should plow. It is wonderful to watch the ground turn over. You know something? Hard ground does not object to being plowed. It only objects to being planted or reaped! Closed eyes do not object to being opened; they just object to being given light.

The best way to open a person’s eyes is to live a godly life in front of him. He may not know what the cause of that godly life is, because that comes with his understanding of  the gospel. Do not tell him why you live the life you do; you can tell him that after his eyes are open. He might think, “Oh, Joe is such a wonderful man. He must be a Buddhist. I think I’ll study Buddhism.” That is not bad, because he is still looking at you. Opening a person’s eyes does not mean that he comes to God; it means that sooner or later he will come to you or to someone like you. When you live a godly life in front of people, it reaches them emotionally, either positively or negatively. It makes a person very conscious of his state, or perhaps just very conscious of your state. He realizes that he is unhappy with his, and he admires yours.

Living a godly life means having a great love for him. This love is not necessarily expressed with a gospel tract attached. (Remember, you are still opening eyes.) Love the person for who he is. Love him unconditionally, regardless of where he is. Loving him is key.

Another way to open eyes is with the things you say, in a testimony. This testimony does not have to have the gospel in it, either. Years ago, I was working in a Christian bookstore in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a student from the University of Michigan who had wandered in suddenly realized what kind of bookstore it was and felt obligated to tell me why she was not a Christian. She went through the entire history of Christianity—the Conquistadors, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the present inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Church, etc.

As she finished, I looked at her and said, “Well, that’s funny. I don’t agree with any of those things either, and I’m a Christian.”

She looked at me, slightly puzzled. “How could that be?” “I’ll tell you why I’m a Christian.” I said, “Twenty-three years ago I had an encounter with God that was like having a bath on the inside. It’s changed my life, and I’ve been happy ever since. I’m sorry you’re not a Christian.” I turned around and started to walk away.

This woman was in a belligerent mood when she started talking to me. If I had presented the gospel to her, she would have fought back. Instead, I told her something that made her want more: I told her I had been happy for twenty-three years! I told her I was clean on the inside, but I did not tell her how I had gotten that way.

As I started to walk away, she grabbed me by the arm and said, “Aren’t you going to tell me how this happened?”

I opened her eyes with a simple statement. If I had tried to give her light, it would not have worked. Just to be sure her eyes were open, I said, “Well, we do not believe in holding onto the customers.”

She said, “I have all the time in the world.” We went into the office, and I gave my testimony, this time loaded with the gospel. I gave her a whole stack of InterVarsity booklets. I do not know for certain that she ever became a Christian, but I am confident that she did. However, I do know this: her heart got plowed, and she got planted in good ground. That is all that had to happen! To push for the harvest right then would have been foolish. She was not ready. We do not have to always do the whole thing at once when we are evangelizing. Sometimes the seed needs time to grow before you can have a harvest.

Some biblical examples of this approach can be found in the Gospel of John. Look at John 3:2-3:

 He [Nicodemus] came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

That was the first time in the history of the world that the expression “born again” had been uttered.

Here is my question: Did Nicodemus know what Jesus was talking about? No! Did Jesus know that Nicodemus didn’t know what He was talking about? Yes! Then why did He say it? Jesus was not communicating information. He was not communicating gospel. There was no light in His statement. Many people today think if you say “born again” often enough, you are preaching the gospel. There is no gospel in that statement. Jesus was not communicating light—He was communicating desire for the kingdom. He was opening Nicodemus’ eyes. He kept laying it on, over and over. Finally, He rubbed it in: “You mean you are a teacher in Israel and you do not understand these things?”

Nicodemus was climbing the walls for light before it was over. Then Jesus gave it to him:

 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:14-18)

Jesus set Nicodemus up. He opened his eyes, made him hungry, made him want more before He gave him the gospel.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, (Transcendence)

the Son can do nothing of his own accord, (Hierarchy)

but only what he sees the Father doing. (Ethics)

For whatever the Father does, (Oath/Sanctions)

that the Son does likewise.” (Succession)

(John 5:19)

The premise that the entire text of the Bible has a common structure, one which operates at multiple levels, has many implications. Besides the fact that this is clearly a miracle, there is the question of why such a limitation would be placed upon the Words of God.

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 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)

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.

While Jesus clearly did many signs throughout his ministry (2:23; 6:2; 20:30), most scholars agree that there are seven signs that are emphasized in the Gospel of John, but only six are universally identified.

1) Water into wine (2:1-11)
2) Healing the official’s son (4:46-54)
3) Healing the paralytic (5:1-18)
4) Feeding the 5,000 (6:5-14)
5) Healing the man born blind (9:1-7)
6) Raising of Lazarus (11:1-45)

When it comes to the seventh sign, some scholars suggest that walking on water [1] is the seventh sign:

Option 1

1) Water into wine (2:1-11)
2) Healing the official’s son (4:46-54)
3) Healing the paralytic (5:1-18)
4) Feeding the 5,000 (6:5-14)
5) Walking on the water (6:16-24)
6) Healing the man born blind (9:1-7)
7) Raising of Lazarus (11:1-45)

Others suggest that the cleansing of the temple [2] is the seventh sign:

Option 2

1) Water into wine (2:1-11)
2) Cleansing of the temple (2:12-22)
3) Healing the official’s son (4:46-54)
4) Healing the paralytic (5:1-18)
5) Feeding the 5,000 (6:5-14)
6) Healing the man born blind (9:1-7)
7) Raising of Lazarus (11:1-45)

Both of these options founder on the same fact: neither possesses the characteristics of the remaining undisputed signs:

Signs are 1) public, supernatural acts 2) performed by Jesus himself that 3) show the glory of Jesus to the disciples (2:11) and crowds (6:2; 12:18), 4) are designed to bring about faith in Jesus as the Son of God (2:11; 4:48; 6:14; 7:31; 20:31) or 5) to harden the unbelieving (12:37-43), 6) are explicitly identified as signs within the gospel, 7) confirm his identity as the one sent by God (2:23; 3:2), and 8 ) emphasize that Jesus brings life to the world through physical signification. [3]

Walking on water was not performed before crowds, is not identified as a sign, and does not demonstrate that Jesus brings life to the world through physical signification. Cleansing the temple is not a supernatural act, is not identified as a sign (though it does provoke a request for a sign), and does not demonstrate that Jesus brings life to the world through physical signification.

What then are the remaining options for the seventh sign? The two most likely options are either the cross or the resurrection. Because both options lend themselves to a chiastic analysis, I’ve displayed both options as a chiasm:

Option 3: The Cross

A Turning water into wine (2:1-11)

B Healing the official’s son who is near death (4:46-54)

C Healing the paralytic who sat near the pool at Bethesda on a Sabbath (5:1-18)

D Feeding the 5,000 with bread (6:5-14)

C’ Healing the man born blind in the pool of Siloam on a Sabbath (9:1-7)

B’ Raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-45)

A’ The Crucifixion of Jesus (18:16-30)

A The Resurrection of Jesus: the beginning of a new creation (cf. John 1:1, 20:1, 19)

Option 4: The Resurrection

A Turning water into wine (2:1-11)

B Healing the official’s son who is near death (4:46-54)

C Healing the paralytic who sat near the pool at Bethesda on a Sabbath (5:1-18)

D Feeding the 5,000 with bread (6:5-14)

C’ Healing the man born blind in the pool of Siloam on a Sabbath (9:1-7)

B’ Raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-45)

A’ The Resurrection of Jesus (20)

The strength of these chiasms is as follows:

1) B and B’ both have to do with life and death: the official’s son is about to die and Lazarus dies as a result of Jesus’ intentional delay. Jesus tells the official that “your son will live” (4:53) and then raises Lazarus from the dead. In both cases, it is Jesus’ word that is efficacious in producing life.

2) C and C’ both revolve around the healing of a disability on a Sabbath (5:9, 9:14) with reference to a pool of water. The paralytic is lying near the Pool of Bethesda and Jesus tells the blind man to wash in the pool of Siloam.

The strength of Option 3 is primarily the connection between A, D, and A’: Wine, Bread, and Cross. Such a structure emphasizes the strong sacramental theology of John’s gospel. Additionally, given that John’s gospel is introduced as a new Genesis (“In the beginning…” John 1:1), it is significant that John 20 emphasizes that Jesus was raised “on the first day of the week” (20:1, 19). Thus, the resurrection is not the seventh sign of the old creation, but the first sign of the new creation. The chief weakness of this proposal is that the cross is not identified as a sign within the gospel nor is it a supernatural act like the remaining signs.

The strength of Option 4 is that the resurrection is identified as a sign in John 2:18-22. In response to the Jews’ request for a sign, Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Significantly, Jesus portrays himself as active in his resurrection (see also 10:18), a feature that is unique to John’s gospel. The reason for this anomaly is that signs are performed by Jesus’ himself. Additionally, the resurrection is a fitting final sign because it is the pre-eminent demonstration of Jesus’ bringing life to the world through the transformation of his own body.

It is possible that Option 3 and 4 can be combined so that the seventh sign is the death and resurrection together. Support for such a reading lies in the fact that the request for a sign after the temple cleansing is met with a statement about both the destruction and raising of the temple of Jesus’ body. Likewise, in John 10:17-18, Jesus claims to have authority both to lay down his life and to take it up again. Additionally, while mention of “signs” ceases after 12:37, 12:33 records that Jesus “signified” (semaino) what kind of death he was going to die (cf. 18:32; 21:19). Thus, a type of signification continues in discussions of his death, so that both his death and resurrection are identified as ‘signs.’ [4]

Well, that’s a meticulous analysis. Thanks to Joe for sharing it. Here’s my go at it, based on the Bible Matrix (which is presented here for your interest and not to detract from Joe’s analysis in any way).

Identifying Lazarus with Trumpets (resurrection) also has the extra benefit of making sense for us of the inclusion of the comment from the crowd, “by this time he stinketh”! The response of the corpse of Lazarus to the voice of Jesus is a “bridal” response (so much for a strictly “objective” New Covenant).

Ascension is often two-fold in the pattern (Altar and Table) but sometimes it is presented as a three-level house, which it seems to be to my mind in this case. It allows us to include Jesus’ walking on the water, which, as Joe points out, is not identified as a sign. It was only witnessed by the disciples. It also ties the end of the “Head” section of the structure to the end of the “Body,” which is Peter’s dominion over the same “Gentile” waters as a fisher of men. Jesus takes dominion over the nations in heaven (as Head – waters above) and the disciples take dominion over them on the earth (as Body – waters below).

________________________________________

[1] Mark Strauss, Four Portraits: One Jesus.
[2] Kostenberger.
[3] These characteristics are based in Nick Nowalk’s criteria set forth in his paper. I have modified and supplemented Nick’s criteria with my own.

[4] This was an excerpt from Joe’s teaching notes on the Gospel of John. Regarding attribution, he writes: “I forget which scholars adopt which view, but I know that I drew from Kostenberger’s commentary, Carson, and Strauss’s Four Portraits: One Jesus. The section about the definition of the signs is a slight modification of a friend’s categorization based on a paper he wrote in seminary arguing for the resurrection as the seventh sign. His name is Nick Nowalk, and he blogs here. The actual argumentation about which view to adopt is also a conglomeration of my own and Nowalk’s. I’m the one who noticed the Eucharistic possibility (I think), and he argues strongly for the resurrection view (though he’s open to the both-and solution).”

Alan Kerr (The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (Library of New Testament Studies), 71) offers this comment on Jesus’ statement that Nicodemus had to be born of the Spirit before entering the kingdom: “It is almost universally accepted that Spirit here refers to the Spirit of God. But at this stage in the Gospel there was no Spirit (7:39), because Jesus was not yet glorified. It is not until Jesus is risen and appears to the disciples and breathes on them and says, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ that the Spirit is given (20:22). So from the point of view of Johannine timing what Jesus says to Nicodemus should only be realized in a post-resurrection setting. Properly speaking he can only be reborn from above when Jesus is glorified.”

This obviously affects the use of John 3:5 as a proof text for the doctrine of regeneration.

Is this support for the ‘giving of the Spirit’ in paedobaptism?

Read Bowing the Heavens.

Firstly, we must make a distinction between the Spirit “coming upon” people and “indwelling” people. The world is sacrificial in nature. The process of sacrifice is a recapitulation of Genesis 1. The process begun in the physical Creation (Genesis 1) is repeated in the social Creation (Genesis 2) and then the spiritual (ethical) Creation (Genesis 3). Flesh is cut, the Spirit comes down (upon it) and the flesh is transformed into a smoky (spiritual) body, a one-and-many.

When Jesus breathed on His disciples, they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit. That happened at Pentecost. All they received was His physical breath (as did Adam in Genesis 2). But the physical breath was a “liturgical” promise of spiritual, that is, ethical breath. Adam would not only have life, but “abundant life,” that is, life in the Spirit, life that reproduces not only the form of God in flesh, but the filling of God, making men of one mind with God and with one another. Only one this threefold process was complete would Adam be a “living sacrifice.”

So, generation (flesh) and regeneration (fire and smoke) are part of the same process, but they are not the same events in that process. With that sacrificial process in mind (flesh, fire smoke), we can get down to business.

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

This is a reference to God’s cloud, the one Jesus was taken into just before He sent the Spirit. Jesus was taken up in the flesh (take note hyperpreterists), He sent the fire of the Spirit, and His disciples, the true Jews, became a cloud of fragrant smoke (note that the Judaizers are describes as a ravenous cloud of sulphur in the Revelation).

Nicodemus speaks of a second earthly (earthy?) birth. Christ says the second birth is from above. Water and Spirit refers to His baptism, at which Jesus was the same as all John’s previous clients according to the flesh (just like Samuel working his way through all Jesse’s sons before the Lord chose David. See A King Among Sons). What was different about David (“Beloved”) and the Beloved Son? Not the flesh.

Jesus turned John’s “waters below” baptism into a “waters above” baptism, which is exactly what the first Elijah did on Mount Carmel. [1] The baptism of John was the water Elijah tipped over the altar. Physically it was the same as the altar of Baal, only wetter — until the Spirit descended and heaven met earth. Then it became prophetic. Elijah “bowed the heavens” — calling them down so that God’s will would be done on earth as in heaven. As in the days of Noah, the waters below came up and the waters above came down, and washed the Altar-Land clean. The end came with a flood and the wicked were washed away.

Elijah’s twelve-stone altar, like Jesus’ body, was the holy mountain in miniature, a representative of all Israel. Because it was a faithful reproduction, God honored it and reproduced it at full-size. What Elijah did as “liturgy,” God then performed in reality.

Then the whole mountain became Elijah’s altar, and the blood of the priests of Baal was the blood in the brook at its base. The singular descent of the Spirit turned God’s people into fiery chariots. Elijah “bowed the heavens”, which is what John did at Jesus’ baptism. Eyes were opened, men were suddenly in the heavenly court, and the truth was exposed. Jesus was vindicated from heaven. Unlike John’s earthly model, Jesus’ “waters above” baptism designates us as representatives upon the crystal sea, the place of vindicated elders who eat and drink with God on the mountain and come down as flaming swords.

John 3 is certainly a reference to Pentecost. Even though the events had not yet taken place, every event in the Old Testament prefigured what was about to take place at the centre of history: the descent of the fire upon all flesh. Some men would be smoke. Others would be ashes. Jesus is talking about every individual becoming a glory cloud, a chariot, a mysterious prophet motivated by unseen things, marching to God’s drum — a miniature of the whole New Covenant prophetic body.

So, regarding regeneration, it’s not either/or. The process of regeneration begins with santified (set apart) flesh on the altar, but the “watershed” moment is the descent of the fire.

What was the result of this fire? Seeing the kingdom of God. To “see” the kingdom is to “perceive” or “discern” it — like the prophet opening the eyes of his servant to the spiritual war behind the flesh and blood.

And Elisha prayed, “O Lord, open his eyes so he may see.”

Being “born again” makes one a spiritual warrior. The fire that came upon now indwells, and God’s people become His body. This means Baal and the other flesh-cutters are goners, as they were in AD70.

Even at its best, paedobaptism could only ever be a baptism of John, and that was only for the twelve stone Altar, for repentant Jews awaiting the Spirit, like Nicodemus. The sacrificial body was washed and placed on the altar. But it wasn’t alive.

As a corollary to this, once the body was transformed by fire, there was no going back, no apostasy possible. There are certainly pretenders to regeneration, but over time the saints get a whiff of sulphur and have to drag them back to the Altar and the knife of the Gospel.

______________________________________
[1] Interestingly, for Israel, the Nile was the “waters below” and the rain of Canaan, the “waters above.” Now that Herod had slain infants, the Jordan was a new “waters below.”

A guest post by Luke Welch.

I’ve been reading The Hobbit again, out loud, to our children, and this time through, one phrase in the first chapter caught my attention.

When Bilbo first encounters Gandalf as an adult, he exhales a list of memories of the greatness and fearful unpredictability of the old wizard:

Not the wandering wizard that gave Old Took a pair of magic diamond studs that fastened themselves and never came undone till ordered? Not the fellow who used to tell such wonderful tales at parties, about dragons and goblins and giants and the rescue of princesses and the unexpected luck of widows’ sons?  (The Hobbit, Chapter 1).

In the Bible, there are two widows who received their sons from the dead: the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17), and the widow of Nain (Luke 7). In both cases, a visit by a prophet results in the resurrection of the widow’s only son. In both cases, the miracle vindicates the prophet, resulting in a confession, a testimony, that the prophet is God’s man indeed.

A prophet
…..visits
……….the “displaced” widow
……….whose son dies or is dead;
……………The prophet performs a miracle
……….and raises the son to life;
……….which brings a testimony
…..of the vindication
of the prophet. [1]

The importance of the vindication of the prophet is often overlooked. Here are the announcements from both stories:

And Elijah took the child and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house and delivered him to his mother. And Elijah said, “See, your son lives.” And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” (Luke 7:15-16)

Resurrection is extraordinary, and therefore entirely unexpected. It is incredible except for those who have witnessed it first-hand. And when it does occur, it reveals that the prophet is under the power of the Spirit of God and confirms his God-given authority to speak for God to the people of God.

Of course, there is another historical resurrection which follows the same pattern.

Jesus was the “only Son” of a widow, Mary. It is likely that Joseph died before Jesus’ baptism. From the beginning of His ministry, at His first miracle (turning water into wine in John 4), Mary treats Jesus as the “man of the house.” While on the cross, Jesus delegates His Covenant responsibility to shelter Mary. He passes it to the next believing man of the family, His younger cousin John, son of Zebedee (John 19.26-27).

Then, her son, her only son, is killed by God (cf. 1 Kings 17:20, Isaiah 53:10).

And so Jesus is resurrected, and Mary receives back her dead.

That leaves us with a question. What does this say about the prophet? Elijah was known to be the Spirit’s mouth because of the resurrection he received through prayer. Jesus was known to be the Great Prophet rising up among the people, because he gave resurrection. But who resurrected Jesus?

It was the Holy Spirit himself (Romans 1:4). Of course, we hear from Paul later on that the resurrection of Jesus was a Trinitarian act (cf. Romans 8:11ff). But even there, the Power of the Holy Spirit is what is emphasized in this life-giving to dead sons.

So, in Mary’s receiving back her dead, we are justified in looking for a testimony, a vindication, of that Prophet. The next great prophetic voice was that of the Spirit in the testimony of Jesus. He was in the apostles, as eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They vindicated Jesus, and history continues to vindicate them. The Spirit is the jar of holy oil that never runs out.

_______________________________
[1] Mike Bull: I’ve expanded a little on Luke’s original outline here, to bring out the echo of the Ten Commandments: Word from God, alienation from the Land, mother and father, knife and fire, theft/gift and true witness, and finally, shelter and sheltered. Concerning the alienation from the Land, “The location of the miracle in Nain is also possibly an allusion to the raising of the Shunamite woman’s son by Elisha because Nain is only a couple of miles north of Shunem (cf. 2Ki 4:). So the event and location are both allusions to Elijah and Elisha.” [bible.org] The prophets ministered to those outside of Israel to provoke Israel to jealousy.

Jordan writes:

From ancient times it has been known that Matthew wrote first (despite all the nonsense of liberals during the last century). Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, in his out-of-print book The Fruit of Lips, presents some compelling arguments to show that each of the gospel writers was adding to the previous writer, and in fact that each gospel picks up where the preceding one left off in terms of theme.

Matthew presents Christ as Ox/Moses. His book is full of speeches, for the ear is central. Jesus is law-giver. God is the Father and the God of heaven, and “kingdom of heaven” is Matthew’s term (pointing back to the symbolism of the Tabernacle).

Mark presents Jesus as a man of action. Mark presents Jesus as Lion/David, performing great works, swiftly going here and there, for the hand is central. In Mark, Jesus always does things “immediately.” Mark is shorter than Matthew not because Mark wrote first (what a silly argument!), but because Mark does not provide the great sermons. The field of action is the land.

Luke presents Jesus as the Eagle/Prophet, interacting with gentiles and women much more than the other two. In Luke, Jesus is always on the move, and half of his book is taken up with the Travel Narrative to Jerusalem, for the foot is central. The Spirit receives the great emphasis in Luke and Acts. The field of action is the world.

Finally, John presents Jesus as Man, the Image of God. The phrase “son of man” used in the other gospels points to Jesus as second Adamic priest, king, and prophet. The phrase “son of God” used in John points to Jesus as the image of God, true humanity as well as true God. John’s Jesus tours the sanctuary, which represents heaven. Thus, John puts us in the Throneland.

James B. Jordan, The Production of the New Testament Canon: A Revisionist Suggestion.

Now, Fruit of Lips is back in print.

John the evangelist was asked in his dotage why his sermon was so short that he would only say, “Children, keep each other at heart.” He gave the famous answer, “For two reasons: it is enough and the Lord has said so.”

The four gospels suffice since every one of the four claims made by Ichthys has become “lips” in one man’s dramatic change of mind. The Lord has made these four claims, no more. And he has said so. Let us read the Gospels once more: Do they give evidence of actual dependence beyond the “material” used? Yes, they do. They beget each other.

Every Gospel begins exactly at the point to which the previous Gospel has progressed on its tortuous path. The last word of the one sets the tune and is the overture for the next. The “last word” is not meant in a literal or pedantic sense; by it, we understand the last step of thought, reached in the dramatic progress.

If this is so, then the Gospels continue each other, each beginning to think and to speak where the previous evangelist had ended, and turning his final word into an opening of a new drama. Matthew’s last word is that Jesus has become the Son of God, in the sense of the Trinity. Mark begins: The Son of God (not “the Son of David,” as Matthew). Mark ends with the “Mission of the ministers of the word.” Fittingly, the missionary Luke begins with “the ministers of the word.” Luke, furthermore, ends Acts with a long statement: That the Jews have ears and do not hear and have eyes but do not see, but “the Gentiles shall hear.”

Majestically, John breaks in at exactly this last word of Acts: “Indeed, the darkness has not seen the light, the world has not seen it, but his own have beheld his glory, and we have seen him.” Also, Luke ends with the power of the Gospel; John begins with the World’s Power.

This is not an accident, this connection of ends and beginnings. Laboriously every Gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the Gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point.

A detailed chart follows, but you will have to purchase the book for that: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips.

They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham… You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.” (John 8:39, 44)

The theme of seed and fruit, or genealogy and mission, runs throughout the Bible. Genealogy is entirely objective. Our heredity is a factor in which we have no choice. It is the tree of life. But the fruit of our lives, what we choose to do with that life, involves our volition. Volition is mission. “It’s not about the hand you are dealt; it’s about how you play it.”

Now, godly and ungodly decisions by individuals (beginning with Adam) do take on a corporate character. An idolatrous man was a man with a corrupt mission, but this would become a heredity in his culture. His children would be born into idolatry, just as Abraham’s sons were born into true worship. So there is genealogical (tribal) character and spiritual character.

Lot’s daughters’ godless decision brought Ammon and Moab into the world. Their spiritual adultery (lack of faith) led to incest, which led to idolatrous nations. One knew what to expect from an Ammonite or a Moabite.

But then God obviously takes great pleasure in violating those “genealogical” characters. Just as Israel was planted in anticipation of a good crop but brought forth thorns and thistles, so God can miraculously bring good fruit from the wild.

One could be a genealogical Canaanite but a spiritual Israelite (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Sidon). And one could also be a genealogical Israelite but become a spiritual Amalekite (Edom, Saul/Doeg, the Herods). It becomes clear that genealogy is not the end of the story, any more than raw flesh left on the altar is the end of the story.

The Old Testament uses genealogical “character” to signify spiritual character. Genealogical identities were given to teach us about spiritual things. Revelation uses many of the genealogical identities of the Old Testament to describe spiritual character. When the prophets (including Jesus and John) refer to Israel as Sodom, Egypt, Tyre and Babylon, they are name-calling. Israel was defying her Abrahamic heritage. The crop didn’t match the seed. Jesus referred to Naaman the faithful Syrian, and the faithful widow of Sidon, to shame the Jews. Paul’s ministry was about exactly that: believing Gentiles from the Covenantal wilderness would bring forth the fruit that was expected of the cultivated Land.

But the genealogical element ended with the New Covenant. The genealogical divide founded in Abraham’s circumcision came to an end with the destruction of the Temple. The entire world was moving from the age of seed to the age of fruit. It was part of the process of growing up.

Circumcision was about genealogy, seed. Baptism is about mission, fruit. Blood and water are both life-giving liquids, but they are different. One concerns genealogy; the other concerns mission. This is why Jesus was baptized as an adult, at the beginning of His earthly ministry. If baptism also concerns one’s parental origins, then Jesus could have been slain for the life of the world as an infant. But He wasn’t, and this highlights the very different character of the New Covenant and its membership.

Faith in Christ puts an end to our heredity. God takes great pleasure in violating our heredity with gospel, and that is what credobaptism is all about. This is not a genealogical change, or we would not still physically die. It is a missional change. Jesus makes this plain in his tirades against the Pharisees. He only speaks the words of the Father, He only does His Father’s business, because He carries the authority of the Father, the mission. In Jesus, Abrahamic genealogy and Abrahamic mission were united.

Jesus’ life before His baptism was about Adamic blood. (We are give only one account of His childhood because it sets a pattern for His life. After His Creation, the next major step is His Levitical Ascension, representing the Twelve. He is taken, missing like Enoch and Elijah, as Firstfruits.) [1]

His life after His baptism was about the works of the Spirit. His baptism was not a genealogical event, as was His circumcision. His baptism was missional. It was an investiture, an ordination. (It surprises me that my Federal Vision friends, many of whom make a big deal of the significance of ministerial robes, don’t see this more clearly.)

Adam was fully grown when he was given his mission, but he was not blameless when it came to his investiture, so he was robed in blood. Genealogy and mission were divided. But Jesus took mankind from the Tree of Life (genealogy/heredity) to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (mission/career), from seed to fruit, from Alpha to Omega, from childhood to maturity.

Paedobaptism drags the nature of the genealogical Old Covenant into the missional New Covenant. Some take the “threshing” process of the first century and apply it to the Church so they can keep on baptizing tares. But the threshing process described in the New Testament was a first century event. Jesus was bringing Israel’s purpose to an end. To use these images indiscriminately now is to rip them out of their historical context. The apostles were dividing, with the sword of the Gospel, between the merely genealogical seed of Abraham and Jew/Gentile spiritual fruit.

One could be Jewish and not believe. One cannot be a Christian and not believe. We are not of the physical seed of Abraham. To maintain a genealogical Covenant, paedobaptism assumes some kind of physical “Christian seed.” Not only is there no support for this in Scripture, it rides against everything that’s going on in the New Testament. John 8:37 cannot be applied to anyone post AD70.

One was connected to Israel by blood. One is connected to Christ, the true Israel, by Spirit. That means if one is not regenerate one is not connected. The New Covenant is about a different kind of life, one that is not merely objective, but both objective and subjective, that is, missional. God calls and the Christian responds.

The “Covenant connection” assumed in paedobaptism is actually enjoyed by everyone on earth. It is the claim of Jesus upon the lives of all men of all nations. Certainly, the Church must excommunicate those who have made a false profession. But they were baptized upon that profession, not their heredity, and they are excommunicated when that profession proves false.

The Old Testament is about seed. The New Testament is about fruit. The Covenants are related, but fundamentally different. Fruit is not seed, and fruit begins with confession/profession. One joins the New Covenant people of God not because one has the same flesh, but because one is a man after God’s heart—a true representative.

_________________________________
[1] The Avatar movie contains the same process. Jake is “chosen” by the creator (head) then “chosen” by the people (body). See James Cameron, Bible Avatar.

1 John 5: 1-12   |   Sermon Notes   |   17 June 2012

Introduction

Jewish Christians were first opposed by unbelieving Jews, then by Jews who said they believed. Members of this latter group are called “Judaizers,” and they were the false teachers whom the apostles condemn in their letters.

Not only did these men pervert the gospel by including adherence to the Law of Moses, they also failed to keep the commandments of Jesus. This was Pharisaism dressed up in Christianity, the old leaven carried into the new age. The Pharisees loved to control people, while they failed to control themselves. This is the context of John’s letters to Jewish Christians: despite their profession, these men would be exposed by their lack of of certain things in their character.

1    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

• The first “child” we love is Jesus. The Jews claimed, and still claim, that they love God, but hate Jesus. John says this is impossible. One cannot love Japan and show disrespect to a Japanese ambassador. Jesus was sent by the Father, and did only what the Father asked Him to do. He spoke the Father’s words. To reject Jesus is to reject the Father — and to replace Him with an idol of our own making.
• First century Judaism became a “doctrine of devils,” and it remains demonic today. In Galatians, Paul refers to it as witchcraft. Judaism is rebellion against Christ and is thus rebellion against the very God of the Jews. (However, when they convert, Jews usually become remarkable Christians.)

2    This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

• And if we love the firstborn, we will love God’s other children, whether we actually like them or not. And if we don’t, the Spirit will be calling us to do so. True Christians know how much they have been forgiven and will be forgiving. Those who refuse, and continually harden their hearts, are most likely not born again.

3    In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

• Christians keep God’s commands not because they are terrified of God, but because they both love and fear Him as a father. We fear discipline from God, but we also come to understand how much we hurt Him when we sin, and what it cost Him to cover that sin in Christ.

4    for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

• What does this mean? It means that any pain can be born if there is a great reward to be had on the other side of it. A mother endures childbirth for the sake of a child. Jesus bore the cross for the sake of plundering the devil’s house of its captives.

• So, the faith spoken of is faith in the promise God makes of what is on the other side of suffering. We take His word for it and endure until what we heard becomes visible to our eyes. Overcoming the world means not believing what the world says, and not believing our eyes. Faith looks at ruins and sees a new house based on the blueprint in the promises of God.

5    Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

• Our faith is based on the fact that Jesus overcame the world. Christians persevere, even when threatened with death, because Jesus, as the Son of God, overcame death.
• The period between AD30 and 70 was characterized by the rivalry between the testimony of Jesus and the testimony of the Jewish rulers. Would it be the Temple or the Church which survived the tribulation? Only one of them “overcame.” Likewise, only the true believers persevered to the end.

6    This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

• This point is where I twigged that in this passage John is working his way very subtly through the Ten Commandments. John is up to “false witness.” Two or three witnesses were required for God to make a judgment. Remember the witnesses against Cain? And Sodom? And the false witnesses brought to testify against Jesus? Here we have the water and the blood as witnesses, and the third witness is the Spirit, who unites the water and the blood. But why is it water and blood?
• Water and blood are both liquids required for life. One comes out of the body and one goes into the body. The Jews were the blood, the circumcision, the genealogy of Christ, the Land rising out of the water. The Gentiles were the water, the baptism, the office of Christ, brought into the household of faith in the first century to bring new life to the Old Covenant body. The body of Christ is one new man, made up of Jew and Gentile, blood and water.
• Jew and Gentile had been separated in Abraham as “Land and Sea.” [1] Water and blood poured out of Jesus’ body when He was speared. Being separate, they were two witnesses that He was dead. But they were reunited in His resurrection body. The old division was torn down. The last sacrificial blood was shed, and now there is only “office.” Genealogy no longer matters. Baptism wipes out all heredity and confers basic Christian office upon all believers.
• Why it is not “blood and water”? The water ended Jesus’ perfect life and began His earthly ministry. The blood completed that ministry. So it’s:
  Circumcision (blood) > Baptism (water); Atonement (blood) > Ascension (water)

7    For there are three that testify:
8    the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

• Unlike the witnesses against Jesus, the witness of Jesus’ baptism and Jesus’ death both corroborate the story of His identity. Not only did the Spirit testify at His baptism, it testified at His resurrection. He came up out of the water, then came up out of the Land.
• The process is actually blood to water: Circumcision to baptism, death to resurrection. But it is the baptism and death in the centre here that John has in mind. If Jesus was only baptized but not resurrected, He would have been a false teacher.

9    We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.

• The Spirit not only witnessed to Jesus’ sonship in history, His testimony continues in us now.

10    Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

• Christians believe the Spirit’s legal witness, and that is why Christians gather as further witnesses, even though we are not eyewitnesses.

11    And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

• Our very life is a testimony to the truth of the Gospel, because the Spirit is making us like Jesus. And now God says of us, as He did of Jesus, that we are “beloved sons.”

12    Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

• Here we have the inside/outside of the new household of God. Only those inside Christ, inside the ark, inside the passover household, are safe.

The Ten Commandments in 1 John 5:1-12

1. Worshipping the True God
2. Responding faithfully to the New Covenant Oath — Jesus’ name
3. Overcoming the world brings Sabbath rest
4. Honouring father and mother (God and church) because Jesus is the Son of God
5. Water and blood testify to the murder of Jesus
6. The Spirit of Jesus is not “strange fire,” or spiritual adultery
7. The Spirit unites water and blood into Kingdom (Adam believed a lie and stole kingdom)
8. We accept God’s testimony, in the cursing and blessing of His Son
9. Eternal life is a new house
10. Whoever believes is in that new house [2]

_________________________________

[1] See Cosmic Language.
[2] I follow the ancient Jewish “scroll” division of the Ten Words, followed by St. Augustine, because it fits the Bible Matrix. See Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key, chapter 4, “God-In-A-Box.”

Art: Land, Sea Alchemy by Lisette, Textile Seahorse