Ritual is powerful stuff. Much of modern evangelicalism prides itself in rejecting liturgy and being “open to the Spirit,” and then turns this “openness” into an uninspired (and very uninspiring) human formula, in place of the inspired Divine one. Instead of following a pattern found in every part of the Bible (worship is literary architecture), we are stuck with either erroneous traditions or off-the-cuff rambles which, although “open to inspiration,” somehow sound exactly the same each week. Human beings love repetition in every area of life, and ritual is a prime method of teaching truth and holiness.

The power of ritual is illustrated in its amazing ability to preserve things such as archaic language and symbolic dress “in amber.” Old parishioners love their traditional Church service. If things aren’t done in the way to which they are accustomed, and in the same order, there is a deep feeling of insecurity. The tradition must be preserved. The motivation for this is often as wrong-headed as that of the moderns who want to update everything: a sense of security found in a common identity. The old people identify with the a human culture that is past, and the young people identify with a human culture that is present. It is the tradition, whether old or new, which gives us our identity. Very often, neither group is actually identifying with the Bible.This brings me to the point of this post: I don’t believe the maintenance of the rite of paedobaptism has much to do with the Bible.

Now, before you brainy paedobaptists tune out, this post is probably going where you think it’s going, but there is a surprising twist in the plot. This week, Peter Leithart writes:

One of Paul’s arguments for the resurrection is baptism for the dead: “What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). Paul is referring to Numbers 19, where those who are defiled by contact with dead bodies. They are sprinkled with a concoction of water and ashes to raise them from their ceremonial death. Paul sees an analogy between that rite and Christian baptism that cleanses from dead works.

If this is Paul’s argument, then it provides some insight to persistent debates concerning the mode of baptism. The rite of Numbers 19 involves sprinkling (vv. 13, 18, 20), and if Numbers 19 is a figure of Christian baptism, then we may be able to draw the inference that Christian baptism for the dead should also be in the mode of sprinkling.

For those used to hearing that Paul is referring to a contemporary pagan ritual, which is in itself a plausible theory, an appeal to the Torah most likely comes out of left field. One thing I appreciate about the Biblical Horizons crowd is their focus on the “self-referential” nature of Scripture. If an allusion is a mystery, the first place we must look is not the contemporary culture but in previous Scripture. Almost invariably, that is where the answers are found. So, how then would I, a credobaptist, deal with this assertion concerning the mode of baptism? I’m glad you asked.

Firstly, Dr Leithart has to ignore all the evidence for immersion as the mode of baptism in actual New Covenant baptismal texts (arguments which, though nothing new, are still potent arguments) and go looking for support in obscure Old Testament rites. Like him, I don’t believe these rites should be obscure to us at all, but surely we shouldn’t be looking to these rites to defy the obvious appearance of New Covenant texts but instead to support them. This practice is just another example of the textual weaseling that goes on to present paedobaptism as biblical rather than merely traditional.

Secondly, this appeal to Numbers 19 does have some merit. James Rogers expounds upon it for us on the Biblical Horizons site here. He writes:

Clearly the writings and practice of the Old Covenant economy are authoritative for the Christian Church. This is why the Old Testament is part of the canon of the Church. The practice of baptism, however, is not an invention of the New Covenant Church (nor of Near Eastern mystery religions). There are a number of ritual baptisms described in the Old Testament, and prescribed for the Jews.

Thus, the New Testament author of Hebrews writes of Old Covenant rituals:

The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the time then present, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they related only to fool and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the flesh imposed until a time of reformation. (Heb. 9:8-10)

The “various baptisms” in verse 10 is often translated as “various washings.” Nonetheless, the Greek word used there is “baptisms” (cf., “instruction about baptisms” in Heb. 6:2).

Now which baptisms is the author of Hebrews writing about? These baptisms are detailed in the immediate context of the passage. Specifically, in verse 13, the author refers to “the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling” as examples of the Old Covenant baptisms that he is writing of.

I agree with him almost 100 per cent and recommend reading the entire article. So, if I agree with him, and thus with the foundations of Dr Leithart’s observation, where do I go from here? What I do is this: I read Numbers 19 without wearing the one-eyed paedobaptist goggle. And what do I discover? I discover that there is another “washing” which is crucial to every stage of this rite which Rogers and Leithart apparently deem to be irrelevant. With their typological cross-hairs focussed solely on evidence for sprinkling, they’ve missed the component which is ripsnorting evidence for immersion. I don’t know how they missed it. A similar command appears four times:

Verse 7: “Then the priest shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. But the priest shall be unclean until evening.

Verse 8: “The one who burns the heifer shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his body in water and shall be unclean until evening”

Verse 10: “And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.”

Verse 19: “And the clean person shall sprinkle it on the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day. Thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he [the clean person] shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.”

This evidence is not exactly subtle, is it? It exposes the paedobaptistic exegetical monacle for what it is: the insight of a one-eyed man.

So, thirdly, the next logical question to ask is this: What is the difference between these two uses of water? Which of these types finds its antitype in New Covenant baptism? Again, the answer is found in Numbers 19. [2]

Verse 9: “And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place. And they shall be kept for the water for impurity for the congregation of the people of Israel; it is a sin offering.“

The text makes a clear distinction between the clean and the unclean, that is, between the pure priesthood and the impure and contaminated people. This “water of impurity” was not purely water. It contained the remains of the heifer (“…its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung”), and the cedarwood, the hyssop and the scarlet thread. It seems to me that the heifer signifies the Bronze Altar, the hyssop (possibly the aromatic herb, “ezov” [1]) signifies the Incense Altar, the scarlet thread signifies the Table of Showbread (which alone was covered with an extra scarlet veil under the common coverings [Number 4:8]), which would leave the cedarwood, a source of medicinal oil, as the signification of the Lampstand, a holy tree of Pentecostal (kingly) anointing. [3] The “water of impurity” is thus an outflow of the ministry of the Tabernacle. The entire humaniform (and cruciform) house itself was symbolically cursed, slain and incinerated, both its earthly and heavenly altars, to free the people from a contagious death, a death spread by a touch of the skin. [4] But note that this water was for the cleansing of those outside the Tabernacle. It was applied to the people by ministers from inside. It was mediated by those who washed their bodies and clothes by immersion (unless the ancients used dry cleaning).

I have used the architecture of Exodus 24 as support for credobaptism, and we see the same idea here. All the people are sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice, but only those on the mountain, the leaders and elders, eat with God as representatives of the people of Israel. After this, the Levitical priesthood is established, with the Tabernacle as a portable Sinai. There is a line between the priesthood and the people. The crystal sea was seen on the mountain. The water is mediated by those who may ascend as model citizens, images of maturity.

The entire point of the transfiguration of the Covenant was to create a priesthood of all believers. All believers are to be witnesses carrying the testimony of Jesus, mediators of the Gospel. We are to be sources of living water, not merely its recipients, which is why our whole bodies and robes are washed. This means that the washing of the body and the clothes in Numbers 19 is far more likely to be the type of New Covenant baptism, and even the New Testament says as much, with its references to “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.” (Revelation 22:14)

All the cuttings and sprinklings were related to sin offerings and thus were fulfilled in Jesus, who was all Israel in One Perfect Offering. The impure water containing the remains of the Old House was the water which flowed, with blood, from the expired flesh of Christ. It is not a testimony of life but of death, a sign that the Law has been satisified and nothing more. The desire of paedobaptists to link the sprinkling in Numbers 19 is entirely logical, because their errant baptism amounts to nothing more than a strange new circumcision, and since the resurrection, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing. Paedobaptism is nothing more than a testimony of death. It is not a testimony of life.

Paedobaptism is nothing but the washing of a sacrificial corpse, a body which awaits the fire. Credobaptism is the robe of ministry for one already clean, temporarily removed in humility to provide cleansing for others (as the High Priest on the Day of Atonement and as Christ when He washed the disciples’ feet) but replaced as an eternal robe of glory, of continuous resurrection, from glory to glory. Baptism is for the gatekeepers, those who are able to discern the spirits because they are of the Spirit. The waters of baptism do not contain the curse, the remains of the Old Tabernacle, but are pure waters rushing out in chariots from a new Bridal Temple.

It is highly ironic that those who speak so much of “the baptized body” limit the ministry of the water to an Old Covenant sprinkling on the head.

_________________________________________
[1] See the wikipedia entry.
[2] For the position of Numbers 19 in the structure of the book, see The Beauty of Numbers – 3.
[3] Note that the cleansing of lepers in Leviticus 14 contains similar ingredients, and includes 2 sacrificial birds, which from our study of Genesis 15 the other day, would symbolize the “holy head,” or the Ark of the Covenant. Also, cedarwood has to do with the  Temple of Solomon.
[4] On leprosy as “snakeskin,” see Scales of Justice.

“Jordan lays out all of the theological and typological issues connected to worship, and more specifically to the Lord’s Supper itself.”

Adam Ross, who I reckon gets through five books on a slow day, has reviewed James Jordan’s From Bread to Wine: Toward a More Biblical Liturgical Theology on goodreads.

In this book, Jordan seeks to demonstrate that the Eucharist replicates the deep patterns of human history, human life, and human ritual. As a result, the book is more focused on the huge, sweeping patterns of Scripture than on Communion itself. This was absolutely fascinating, but not what I was looking for nor expecting. Jordan is right on the money, of course, but I was looking for more exposition of the Eucharist passages and their OT backgrounds. He does have several chapters on this stuff, though, which was extremely helpful.
He also links the move from bread to broken bread, wine to poured wine to the growth of the human person and human society from priest to king to prophet, and shows that the transition from these always involve suffering and crises. Thus, priesthood spans childhood from birth to the creation of a new home in marriage, kingship spans from marriage to the mid-life crisis, and out of this crisis the renewal of life as a prophet, a king-maker and world-maker. The benefit of all this for understanding and processing human struggle in life and for counseling those currently in the midst of such crises, cannot be overestimated. So many give up and depart from their husbands or wives, abandon their hope, etc, because they don’t understand the need to persevere in this state until God gives renewal and a third stage of new creation.

Jordan also links these stages to faith, hope, and love, in that order. The priest simply performs what is heard in faith. The transition from priest to king is typically hopeful – when you get married you are full of hope in the future. The transition from king to prophet must be focused on love and loyalty, because it is a dark suffering, a dark night of the soul, and only love in perseverance will see you through. Which is why for Paul, love is the greatest of these three. It completes the transformation of human life and human society.

All of this gets put together to show that the Eucharist spans all of these patterns, and therefore is the grounding needed to survive them. It makes a new world every week when it is celebrated, and it takes you through a microcosom of the span of human life, programming your liturgical rhythms to progress through these stages, so that every Sunday you are pulled apart by God and put back together into a new creation more and more.

The book is available from Biblical Horizons.

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (1 Corinthians 15:46-49)

We’ve been talking about “intuition,” which is something ascribed more to women than to men. If we relate it to hermeneutics, does this mean women make better Bible interpreters, or is there something deeper going on?

Adam was formed out of the dust, then filled with the “breath” of God. It wasn’t the indwelling Spirit of God. It was a physical breath, the “spirit of man,” if you like. But, like everything God does, it pictured something greater to come. The “earthy” anticipated the “heavenly.” Adam would be filled with the Spirit of God (as a qualified representative) if he was willing to “come and die” under the Law of the Covenant. He was to risk his life to save his bride.

We discussed how Adam failed to anticipate the will of God in the destruction of the serpent. From many later events, where the people of God got the same test right (typologically), we can see that it is most likely Eve who would have provided that “intuition.” The Bride is attacked by the serpent, the Bridegroom steps in and repeats the Law so she is not deceived (as the elect body), then, as co-regent, co-judge, she stands with him and calls down the Covenant curses upon the exposed serpent. [1] Adam obeys and receives the Spirit, which He sends to the Bride. Then Eve obeys and receives the Spirit. We see this exact pattern play out in the first century. Those who hear and disobey the gospel receive an evil spirit from the Lord. Those who hear and obey eventually judge angels.

But let’s take things beyond Genesis 3. How does this observation affect our interpretation of the minimalist narrative in Genesis 4? Genesis 1-3 is a continual process of “forming (dividing) and filling,” except that Adam failed to “fulfill” the Covenant Law. In Genesis 4, Eve has two sons, a new “division.” Eve anticipated the future in the names of her two sons. In his commentary on Genesis 2-4, James Jordan observes:

Cain (Qayin) means “smith,” and relates to the firmness of the earth, while Abel (Hebel) means “mist,” and relates to the heaven – but to which heaven? It is clear from what follows that Abel links with the firmament made on Day 2. So let us look back at Genesis 4:1. Adam knew his wife, and this links with God’s sending His Spirit into dust to make Adam. The “adam” that Adam makes with Eve is Cain, and Eve’s statement that she has acquired a man with Yahweh brings this first event to a close. Cain is the new Adam. [2]

Recently, Eric Greene suggested “a little tweak” for exegeting Gen. 4:1. [3] Eve’s two sons are a new heaven and a new earth, but in “social” terms:

JBJ says that Mr. Vapor/Breath (Abel) signifies heaven. To help substantiate this I would argue that he was named after God’s fatherly vaporous breath. Cain means Mr. Smith-worker, working the metal from the ground, like the Kenites (compare 4:22). I would argue that Cain is named after the motherly earthy dust. Cain and Abel are named after their “Grandparents” for they are some of the “descendents of the heavens and the earth” (2:4).

After God heals their marriage, forgives, and promotes them out of the garden, Eve knows that the Promised Seed is meant to replace her husband. Her husband failed to kill the Serpent, but she knows the Seed will arise replacing her husband in that redeeming/conquering role. It is quite clear from the text that the Redeemer will be the Adam-Replacer; replacing and surpassing what Adam failed to do.

Jordan again:

Similarly, and more interestingly (since we all know that it is not the snake but Satan who is to be crushed), the word “heel” means “replacement.” Thus, Jacob’s name was not just “Heel” but “Replacement” (see Genesis 27:36). Thus, the phrase can be translated, “You will bruise his replacement.” Who is the Replacement for the seed of the woman, if not Jesus? It is each replacement, each new “heel,” who is bruised in the Biblical narrative: Abel replaces Adam and is bruised. Isaac replaces Abraham and is bruised. Ultimately, Jesus replaces all the seed of the woman, and is bruised. Then, as Jesus ascends to heaven, the Church replaces Jesus and is called to be bruised, to carry forth His suffering for the life of the world. [4]

Greene again:

Since the word “heel” means “replacement” we can easily see the poetic point: the Redeemer-Replacer will be struck on His Replacement. Without getting into what that implies, I think Eve would have had the wisdom to put one and one together. The Messiah to come would function as the Mighty Replacer, even expecting His own heel to be bruised.

It seems plausible to me that Eve would have known that her first-born son would not been a messiah/redeemer. According to blueletterbible dot org, “Cain” is a play on the word “cana” (possession), since Eve said, “I have possessed a man…” Cain is also the root word for the Kenites who were metal “smiths”, hence you are right, Cain also carries the meaning for “spear”. Thus, Tubal-Cain dug up iron ore from the ground to make “spears” as a “metal-worker”.

Jordan again:

“The first son of Adam and Eve was named Cain. The name Qayin means “smith, metal-worker,” and recurs in the name Tubal-Qayin, the father of the forge, in 4:22. There is also a pun on his name, since Eve associates the name with something acquired (qanithi). Metal is but hard ground, and so Cain as one who serves the ground is also one who forges metal. Digging up the ground so as to plant crops is close to digging up the ground to find ore to forge into metal. “Cain,” thus, is a name that connotes strength. Adam was set to serve the ground (2:15, “to serve and guard” the garden). As we saw last time, Cain is the new Adam, the first from Adam, the continuation of the generations of the heavens and the earth.” [5]

Greene again:

So, she named Cain, associating him with earth, thanking God that He multiplied her conception, saying, she “acquired a man from the LORD”. Then, implicitly, she named “his brother” associating him with the hope of God’s vaporous heavenly breath.

Anyway this makes me think that while Eve was first pregnant she said, “Hey sweetheart, Adam, let’s name this baby ‘Cain’ – since our Yahweh made you from dirt. The baby can work with the hard dirt and make things. But, darling, let’s name our second-born ‘Abel’ – since our Yahweh breathed His heavenly vapour into your dust. Maybe when this life-breathing child grows up he will replace you and his brother by killing that Devil.” Then Adam, said, “Eve, you are very wise, and even right this time!”

Ironically, he came to symbolize the brevity of life, not the life-giving power of God’s breath. And yes, later, even Eve’s hope in Replacer-Abel was replaced with Seth.

Just like his name, “Cain” himself also became a “spear,” the bloody sword that comes out of the smith’s furnace. This would mean that the two sons are knife and fire, forming and filling, earth and breath, Old Covenant (the time of knives) and New (the time of fire). The New Covenant could not fully arrive until all the innocent blood that was shed from Abel to Zechariah was avenged upon the Land. Only then could knife and fire be united as a flaming sword in the hand of a new Adam. The “filling up” of the sufferings of Christ in the saints completes the sacrificial process (Colossians 1:24).

But back to Bible interpretation. God speaks, Adam listens. The serpent speaks. Hopefully, nobody listens. Then Adam speaks, Eve listens. Eve curses, Adam strikes. She is his intuition. This is exactly the process we see in the first century, presented as liturgy in the Revelation. The martyred saints know that their redemption (resurrection) can only occur through vengeance upon their murderers.

And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the [Land], and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and a [Land]quake. (Revelation 8:3-5)

So, Jesus is the Church’s obedience, and the Spirit-filled Church is then the “intuition” of Jesus, the “friends of God,” courtly advisers ruling the world through worship and prayer. As His body, our blood is Jesus’ blood. As His body, our corporate foot is Jesus’ foot. [6] And this crushing foot is gathered, united and enabled by the Spirit.

Interpreting the Word correctly comes gradually as a result of the Spirit of God. And if I were the devil, watching the Church figure things out over the centuries would make me even more disturbed. Indeed, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

_________________________________
[1] See Esther and the Ten Words.
[2] James B. Jordan, Trees & Thorns: A Commentary on Genesis 2-4, Volume 12, N0. 132. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com. Documents also included in the complete James Jordan library, available from www.wordmp3.com
[3] From a discussion on the Biblical Horizons forum. Reproduced with Eric’s permission.
[4] Jordan, Volume 9, No. 96.
[5] Jordan, Volume 11, No. 123.
[6] See Under Your Feet.

Art: Eowyn and the Nazgul by bluefooted.

How can we fix modern worship? Nearly all debate on this subject overlooks what the Bible has to say.

In From Silence to Song, Peter Leithart justifies the practice of finding patterns for our worship in the Levitical rites in the fact that King David did precisely this.

“…sacrificial worship did not cease with the coming of the New Covenant, but was transformed into a “spiritual sacrifice” and “sacrifice of praise.” We now do different things than ancient Israelites did, but those actions have the same meaning as the actions in the Levitical ceremonies.

We no longer slaughter bulls and goats for blood purification but we do confess our sins so as to be cleansed (1 John 1:9-8). We no longer dismember animals before the Lord’s table, but instead the Word cuts us into pieces so that we may be offered as sacrifices (Heb. 4:11-12). We no longer keep Passover but we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, which fulfills Passover (among other things) and may be described as a Christian Passover. This same “transposition” from an Old to a New Covenant key can be applied to other rituals of the Levitical system. We understanding what we are doing in worship through the categories of the sacrificial system, under the metaphor of sacrifice.

Not everyone is convinced that the sequence of sacrifices provides an authoritative pattern for Christian worship. While praising James Jordan’s liturgical work for its creativity, John Frame is skeptical that we can derive “strict rules for the order of worship” from “symbolism.”

Though it may be insufficient to convince Prof. Frame the texts concerned with Davidic worship support Jordan’s (and others’) use of symbols and patterns from Leviticus. In the Davidic system as described by Chronicles, we find an example—a canonical example, mind you—of a similar process of transformation. As noted above, David cited the Mosaic sacrificial law to give warrant to worship that heavily emphasized music rather than animal offering… The sacrificial terms are employed to describe Davidic worship in a number of respects.

Like the burned portion of a tribute offering, music was a “memorial”; when the Levites played instruments and sang they were “standing to serve” as the law required; their divisions were described as “watches,” and their singing was considered a new form of “labor,” analogous to the transport of the tabernacle during the Mosaic period. In short, we see already in David’s time the Old Testament origins of the idea of a “sacrifice of praise,” and Chronicles shows that this notion grows out of an application of the sacrificial law. This example gives us plenty of warrant to explore how other aspects of the Levitical ceremony might guide the theology and practice of Christian worship.” (pp. 110-111)

Of course, the patterns in the Levitical rites can be traced back through the structure of the Covenants to the structure of Genesis 1, and, even beyond that, to the “architecture” of the Holy Trinity.

“[Wine, women and song] are three things which are essential characteristics of the New Covenant glory which the Church has done a bad job of affirming over the centuries, and are three things which are hated by Islam. Islam is the scourge of Christendom, and a mirror of Christendom. It’s as if all the mistakes the Church makes are magnified in Islam or in some way directly perverted in Islam. Then, there is a fourth characteristic of the New Creation order: holy war.

These are areas in which the church has continually failed to be what God intends, and so there must be something important these things. So, somebody must not want us to think about them.

We have failed to treat worship as liturgical warfare. Worship has been everything but liturgical warfare. The book of Revelation is seen as a bunch of fantasy predictions, or something else, but the last thing it is seen as is a training manual for liturgical warfare. The book describes a worship service in heaven in which warfare is going on, conducted by angels as a model for what the Church is supposed to do. A minute ago, we prayed, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Obviously, that means worship on earth as it is done in heaven. But when we look at worship in heaven, it doesn’t bear much resemblance to what we do in practice…

I don’t think we really believe that when we worship, demons are driven away. And the more closely we worship in the way the Bible describes, the more the principalities and powers will be cast down. The Church has operated much more by sight than by faith in this area.”

Some Notes on Liturgical Etiquette by James B. Jordan

We all now live in the age of slob worship thanks to the “sixties.” I never experienced sitting for prayer until 20 years ago. Jesus was unhappy when His disciples could not watch and pray for one hour. Today’s slob Christians complain if they have to stand for five minutes. It’s pretty pathetic when you get right down to it. Our forefathers would be amazed. The only people who sat for prayer in the entire history of the church were the infirm and the elderly. Sitting for prayer is one generation old.

So, for younger readers, here are some basic rules of liturgical etiquette.

1. Stand for all prayers, save for communion and if possible confession. Jesus was seated when He gave thanks at the Last Supper, so that is the one instance of seated prayer in worship.

2. Stand at “easy attention,” hands at your sides, feet slightly apart. Or with hands raised (palms up at your shoulders, or crossed and resting on your shoulders, or pressed together over your chest).  NEVER with hands in pockets. NEVER slouching on one leg. NEVER.

SHAPE UP, YOU LAZY SLOBS!!!

3. The normal alternative to kneeling for confession is standing.

4. Those who cannot stand or kneel, if kneeling is employed, should sit on the edge of their seat and lean forward with arms on the pew/chair in front of them, like everyone else, and their legs bent under them.

5. Kneeling is NOT crouching. We kneel at attention, back straight, looking forward or at the prayer in the book/bulletin. Crouching is for the prayer closet. In worship we kneel as an army.

6. Now, to be sure, all this has to be taught. Once it was, and it lasted for 1900 years. As creationists, we believe the body is supremely important, and hence so is posture. So, give instruction on it.

7. Also, we stand at attention for the Creed. We do not pledge attention seated.

8. If you’re stuck with a bad tradition in these areas, make it a matter of teaching and upshapingness.

So, get going!

“…practical, daily piety (“religious sense”) flows from liturgical piety. The sense of how man approaches God in formal public worship before His throne determines the sense of how man serves God in daily life. It follows from this that changes in practical piety are largely a reflection of changes in liturgical piety. At the same time, as we shall see, misunderstandings of practical piety feed back into liturgical piety. A practical piety that focuses on negation of the world rather than on its transformation will work to destroy the spirit of thanksgiving in the liturgy, and will also give rise to wrong understandings of what is happening during the Lord’s Supper.”

James B. Jordan, Christian Piety: Deformed and Reformed.

Okay, so The Earth is Flat after all. The Atlar’s being a symbol of the mediatorial Land, (a priesthood between the heavenly sky and Gentile sea) is the key to a fair amount of weird stuff in the Bible. It also means that a lot of what goes on in the Torah is the key to understanding some later enigmatic events.

The Bronze Altar had a grate inside it to support the sacrifice. The ashes would fall through the holes in the grate and the smoke would rise as a pleasing aroma to God.

In Numbers 16, concerning the rebellion of Korah and his sons, after the “censer” showdown between them and Aaron, the ground opened up and swallowed their tents, all their belongings and their families. However, fire consumed the wannabe priests who were offering the “false” incense. Even the rebellion was divided according to the priestly divisions within Israel. Ashes and smoke. [1]

The rebels’ bronze censers were hammered out to make a covering for the altar, a memorial to their rebellion. Even their priestly possessions were “consumed” by this “Land.” The demise of these false priests was glorifying to God.

We see the same thing in Zechariah 14, except that because the Tabernacle “tower to heaven” is laid out on the ground, it is west-east instead of up-down. The Altar-mountain is split in two, the saints ascend into the Holy Place (to the East) and the rebels are swallowed as ashes.

Why is the Altar/Land/Mountain split in two? To make way for a new one. Jesus dies, the veil (the firmament) is torn and the rocks (the Altar-Land) are split. Jesus’ spirit is given up to God and then He takes our sins into the earth. Tombs open and saints are resurrected as a witness. Of course, this entire event is kind of “liturgical”—a microcosmic precursor—of events that would occur on a greater scale one generation later.

The saints under the Altar cried for vengeance upon a corrupted priesthood that had shed their blood since the death of Abel. Releasing them would require the breaking up of the old Altar-Land. They were told to wait until living saints were sealed—and slain—before they could ascend. Just as the death of Jesus as head split the rocks, the death of martyrs in Jerusalem would split the entire city. [2]

In AD70, the Herodian sons of Korah were swallowed by the Land, falling through the grate as ashes. The Old Testament saints and the New Covenant rulers—the Apostles—ascended as smoke, a pleasing aroma. This was the first resurrection. [3]

And, just as the judgments upon Jerusalem in Revelation 6-19 were a sign to the infant churches of Asia (who already contained the seeds of the same sins), the glory of the false priesthood became a memorial to any of us who would challenge the true High Priest.

The same thing happens in Revelation 20 at the second resurrection—the one we are looking forward to. Fire falls from heaven and makes a division. The World-Altar is split as a final judgment to make way for the physical New Earth.

Are you ashes or smoke? Either way it is death, a memorial to obedience or disobedience. Either way, sin is covered and God is glorified.

_____________________________________________________________
[1] An adulterous would be stoned (split rocks), but an adulterous daughter of a priest would be stoned and then burnt. Notice the harlot in Revelation would be burnt with fire. She was not Rome but Herod’s Jerusalem Inc.
[2] See also Splitting Rocks , The Peskiest Chapter in the Bible, The Falling Away, God Indivisible
[3] See The First Resurrection

This contribution by Kelby Carlson, who just finished my book. He deserves a big medal. He also thinks it should be longer!

For our English class we are reading The Scarlet Letter. It’s amazing how much symbolism there is in literature, and your book (Jordan’s, too, and a few others) have really started to help me see that. I think man fundmentally fits symbols into everything, even if sometimes it is unintentional. I am just amazed at how something that at first appears simple can say so much; which has me even more in awe of the Scriptures.

I was just reading Colossians 1:15-20 and had heard that those verses were structured as a liturgical hymn. This is an astoundingly compact and intricate series of verses and it is one of the best and most beautiful proclamations of the Gospel-Through-Word in the entire New Testament. It is structured both around creation and around the liturgy; its parallelisms are constant and rhythmic even in an English translation. It also reflects a pattern from Garden (ark-throne), to land (the holy people), to world (glorious reconciliation.) Here is an outline following the seven steps of the Dominion chiasm:

Creation (garden, light, ark, word): He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Division (firmament-heaven, veil, mediation: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;

Ascension (head, firstfruits): all things were created by him and for him.

Testing (lampstand, ruling light, mighty man): He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Maturity (incense-clouds, holy people, totus christus, garden to land): And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Conquest (Atonement, High Priest, final filling, land to world): For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven

Glorification (booths, final libation, wine, blood): by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

or Filling Up That Which is Lacking

After reading about the Bible’s use of robes as symbols of office (see The Dominion Trap by James B. Jordan), Tim Mitchell commented:

In Bible study we’ve been looking at John, so a few weeks ago was John 13. My Bible translated v.4-5 as “So he got up from the table, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin. Then he began to wash the disciples’ feel, drying them with the towel he had around him.”

So that recalled for me the couple of pages on robe imagery, and it seems to foreshadow what Jesus will do later on very well: He is willing to take off his authority and righteousness, and take on the dirt of our sin.

But then I got a bit unsure, since Jesus then goes on to say “you ought to wash each others’ feet” in v.14 and “Do as I have done to you” in v.15. So if the symbolism applies, how are we also supposed to take other peoples’ sin on us as Jesus did?

Firstly, what a great question. Many New Testament passages become so familiar that we often lose the ability to really think about their ramifications.

The structure of the Last Supper puts this action of Jesus at Atonement, the Laver (Day 6). Jesus is liturgically pre-enacting His role as High Priest. The Adam removed his glorious robes and wore linen for the Day of Covering. Jesus left this in the tomb with our sin on it. But that is not all the High Priest did. He approached the Most Holy twice.

The High Priest entered with blood for Himself and the priests. Then he entered again with blood for the people. The suffering of those bold first century saints, including Peter, as this second entry, completed the foundation of a New Jerusalem, and brought down God’s vengeance and an end to the rebels continuing the Old Covenant rites. Christians are never taught this history, so a great deal of the New Testament is read out of context. [1]

“As living Eve sacrifices, they were to
‘fill up that which was lacking’ in
the hidden Adam Temple sacrifices”

The age of the eagle, the four empires from Babylon to Rome, is referred to as the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). After its restoration, all Israel was supposed to be a suffering servant like Joseph or Daniel, a priesthood working to fill the empire-Tabernacle with “bread”. Although animals were again sacrificed for the nations in Jerusalem, the outward sign of this was the servanthood of the Jews scattered throughout the nations. As living Eve sacrifices, they were to “fill up that which was lacking” in the hidden Adam Temple sacrifices (Romans 12:1; Colossians 1:24). Blood is always presented in the dark, in secret, and the Lord always rewards openly.

To bring that age to an end, the disciples would “fill up that which was lacking” by passing through the same rejection and death as Jesus. His blood would be shed, but so would the blood of these disciples. In this gospel age, the Totus Christus, Jesus and church, is a corporate High Priest. [2]

The Land is always purified with blood. The kingdom is always bought with blood. I think that is what the writer of Hebrews meant when he said the first century Jews should enter the Holy Place boldly. It was certainly an expression of free access to the Throne of Grace, but such access is always mediatorial, governmental. That is the nature of both the Lord and His Creation. We are Esther standing before Ahasuerus. This is the nature of leadership according to the Bible.

The Ark and its two seraphic angels were the tomb of Jesus. The promised rest of Canaan is always entered over blood, by death, no less now that it is a heavenly country. We are to enter the Tomb boldly with our own blood for the next generation, not atoning, but demonstrating. We do this liturgically as we pass the cup to each other. [3]

We enter into death together, hidden from the world in the Holy Place, and leave church each week as resurrected saints rising out of open graves to conquer the world as living sacrifices. As broken bread and poured out wine, we feed and wash the destitute world as Jesus did, with discipleship and baptism, until all humanity is a priesthood standing with feet washed on the crystal sea.

As usual, there is also a negative side to this. The saints demonstrate the gospel of Christ by forgiving those who sin against us. But there is a final Day of Atonement coming when all the sin registered upon us will be avenged upon those who hardened their hearts as it was in AD70. [4]

_______________________________________
[1]  See How to Read the New Testament.
[2]  See Under Your Feet and Twelve Thrones.
[3]   See Places in the Heart.
[4]  See Right as Rain and No More Sacrifice for Sins.