Ignorance of the Bible’s very consistent architecture has led to the assembly of many well-meaning but errant doctrinal constructs over the centuries. With reference to it, however, the conflicts are made plain. Our own towers to heaven, however historic they might be, and however cherished, must be torn down.

Just as the “tabernacling” of God in human flesh established a new temple, so the architecture of God serves as the measure for the edifices of man in every sphere. As the Bible repeatedly shows, the city of God will only be built according to the blueprint from heaven, the one given upon the mountain. Anything else will be revealed by fire as mud bricks and straw, a house built on sand, or wood, hay and stubble.

Architecture as Process

The Bible’s sacred architecture is not “solid state.” Not only does it become more and more glorious as the story progresses, from garden to tent, from temple to city, from nature to culture, the elements of the building themselves constitute a process of maturity, recapitulating the pattern of “forming and filling” established in Genesis 1.¹For examples, see Revelation – Cycle 2 Just as that pattern underlies the shape of Genesis 2 — the social architecture established in Adam and Eve²See Covenant Structure in Genesis 2 — so it also underlies the dictation and construction of the Tabernacle in the latter part of the book of Exodus. These chapters are the worst kind of tedium unless we are willing to think visually, or architecturally. If, after careful and repeated readings of the book of Genesis, we have the “heavenly pattern” hidden in our hearts, the details of the tent of God are not a boring list but a tour of the gallery of grace, an architectural representation of the work of God in every sphere, from the creation of the world down to the heart of the humblest saint. Although these sequences are far more complex, we can begin to sing along because we already know the tune.³See The Shape of Exodus 25-31

Since all God’s works are “musical” in that sense, we should not be surprised to find the same architecture in biblical worship. Jeff Meyers writes:

Jesus taught us to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). He thereby established heaven as the pattern for what is done on earth. (Actually, this pattern is symbolized in many places in the Old Testament, beginning in Genesis 1:1-2.) This is especially the case with regard to the church’s worship. Surely the manner in which worship is conducted in heaven functions as a model for the church on earth. When the Apostle John was privileged to observe heavenly worship, as he records for us in the Revelation, he saw an orderly, formal service performed by angels, living beings, and the twenty-four elders (the precise identity of each of these beings is not our concern here). They repeated various rituals and ritual responses (Rev. 4:9-11). They alternated responses antiphonally (Rev. 5:11-14). They sang hymns in unison (Rev. 5:9). They fell down together (no doubt, a prearranged liturgical action), and they jointly recited prayers of praise and thanksgiving that must have been pre-composed and memorized. How else would they have all prayed (or sung) simultaneously?⁴Jeffrey J. Meyers, The Lord’s Service: Worship at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, 19, a condensed version of The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship.

Meyers notes that, just like the Creation week, and indeed like any good music, the liturgy of worship “moves from tension to rest, from mourning to joy.” What began as “formless and void” becomes “formed and filled.” Our weekly worship is thus a celebration of the new creation established in the death, resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Christ. The action moves from bloodshed on the earth to rule over the nations. This process is called “Covenant Renewal Worship” because it follows the pattern of all biblical Covenants.

The process begins with the authority of God, purifies His people, then sends them as representatives into the world. This is the Above, Beside, Below architecture found in the Ten Commandments.⁶See God-In-A-Box  The threefold Trinity becomes fivefold by Covenant and then sevenfold in history. The pattern instilled in us in the house of God is then recapitulated in our own houses, tribes, cities and nations.

But this process of the Spirit “coming down” always follows the ascension offering, the sacrifice “going up.”⁷For more discussion on the meaning of the ascension offering, see The First Ascension. The three-level “ziggurat” described in Exodus 20:4 and Philippians 2:10 is turned upside down in the ministry of Christ.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything…

that is in heaven above,
(Step 3: Jesus’ ascension – Authority to Rule: GOVERNMENT)
^
or that is in the [land] beneath,
(Step 2: Jesus’ transfiguration – Authority to Die: SACRAMENT)
^
or that is in the water under the [land].”
(Step 1: Jesus’ baptism – Authority to Testify: WORD)⁸For more discussion, see Jesus’ Three Ascensions

Jesus sent His Spirit only after He ascended into heaven as the ultimate sacrifice. Man must be represented in heaven before he can be commissioned to represent God on earth. This is why Adam was put through a process of ethical qualification. His submission to the word-sword of heaven would qualify him to be its bearer on earth.⁹For more discussion, see “The Spirit of Adam” and “The Meekest Man” in Inquiétude: Essays for a People without Eyes. Just as there was tension and rest in the testing and enthronement of Christ (Below, Beside, Above), so there is now tension and rest is the conquest of the nations by the Gospel (Above, Beside, Below). ¹⁰Interestingly, although the flow of divine authority in the fivefold Covenant is Above, Beside, Below, the sevenfold process includes both an ascent and a descent. God always works in fractals.

Architecture as Drama

Now, as a visual thinker, some things are obvious to me that are not obvious to other people. Thinking visually not only allows one to think spatially or architecturally (how things are placed in a given space), it then allows you to make some observations concerning the spatial “relationships” between those things. In dramatic terminology, this placement of people is referred to as “blocking.” Eric Sean McGiven writes:

Blocking is the positioning and movement of the characters to tell the story in visual terms. This placement can suggest the attitudes of the characters toward one another so the story situation is conveyed to the audience with or without dialogue. It makes the audience understand, at times contrary to the dialogue, the inner meaning existing within and between characters.

Blocking should make the dramatic or comedic purpose of the scene so clearly apparent to the viewer that even a deaf man could understand it. For example, silent films were almost all physical behavior. A whole generation grew up understanding and enjoying these films.

The visual story reflects the moment to moment failure or success of each character’s struggle toward their objective, as well as the intensity (commitment) and focus (direction) of their emotions. Blocking is thus the accumulation of several components: the dramatic relationship, the character’s wants, what he feels, what stands in the way, and how is the conflict presently resolving. Now when I say winning or failing, I don’t mean whether the character achieves their end goal, but whether they are succeeding or failing at specific moments along the way.

Blocking, is therefore, a comparative portrayal of strong and weak movements, and relative positions. This means that certain body positions; stage areas, planes, and levels along with character movements have definite values. They inject meaning into the picture and the telling of the story.

For instance, a strong movement of a figure is one rising from a chair, straightening up, placing weight on the forward foot, raising the arm, or walking forward. A weak movement, on the other hand, is stepping backward, slouching, placing the weight on the rear foot, sitting down, lowering the arm, walking backward, or turning around and walking away from a figure or object.

We could also define, in general, whether physical behavior is strong or weak, whether it signifies a winning attitude or one of struggle or failure.¹¹Eric Sean McGiven, Blocking and Movement.

The first point that should be made here is the importance of physical posture in liturgy. The saints kneel or prostrate themselves to confess sins because we are slain as living sacrifices. The saints stand to sing and pray because these are priestly acts of service, and servants stand. The saints hear the word and receive communion seated because we are priest-kings, friends of God. Covenant renewal worship (or whatever you choose to call it) purifies our hearts and leads to the saints walking among the nations as prophets.

Liturgy, under the Old Covenant and the New, is sacred drama. People used to go to church to absorb patterns for life. Now, sadly, they watch TV and movies to learn how to live, and entertainment rather than the Bible informs the pattern of modern worship as it does the method of modern Bible teaching. It is little wonder that Christians learn nothing new at church. It is also telling that the first generation to skip Sunday School is responsible for the current plague of corruption in public and private institutions. Cultus always leads to culture. Men must learn to kneel before they can stand and walk with authority.

When it comes to the Bible, obtaining an understanding of the blocking of all the actors on the ubiquitous “sacred stage” explains many mysteries.¹²See Orientation Day My favourite example is the blocking of the actors in the account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. The placement of all the people in the “legal” architecture of the court of God reveals it to be a replay of the events in Eden, only this time there is a better Adam. Not only this, but the careful mentions of Jesus sitting, bending down and standing are also architectural cues. There is no drama so deep and rich as even the simplest Bible story.¹³See The Emancipation of Eve.

Children And Liturgy

Since every Bible story has the same shape (the Bible Matrix), and each of the seven steps in that process corresponds to some element in the Tabernacle, every Bible story is an expression of the house of God, the heart of the city of God. This is very obviously the case with Exodus 24, and this chapter exposes one of the “architectural conflicts” mentioned above.

The pattern of biblical worship is not compatible with the doctrine of paedosacraments held by Jeff Meyers. Why? Because God never puts children in the Sanctuary. As it was in Eden, even before the children were born, the Sanctuary was only open to those who legally represented them.¹⁴For more discussion, see Cultivation and Representation. Even in the account of the woman caught in adultery, where the real target of the serpent is Jesus, the Offspring of the Woman, it is Jesus as the Man. Those whose intention is to include children in worship patterned after the biblical order should look more closely at that pattern, and this is where Exodus 24 is extremely helpful. The children were included, but we ought to observe how and where they were included.

Here is the pattern of Covenant Renewal Worship in its sevenfold form (from Bible Matrix, p. 217):

As in Genesis 1, the process begins with the authority of heaven and concludes with the establishment of a representative authority on earth. This is also what we see in Exodus 24.

The events of Exodus 24 occurred just before the dictation of the instructions for the Tabernacle. In this chapter, the people of God are not only gathered, cleansed, consecrated, commune with God and are commissioned, they are also divided up within the different stages of the “ascension” process on Mount Sinai. The entire nation, as the “corporate firstborn” of God became a picture of the process of sacrifice, and what we must notice is that the process not only moves from Below, to Beside, to Above, it also takes us from the sons of men on earth to the Sons of God in heaven:

The most common arguments for paedosacraments rely on Circumcision (for paedobaptism) and Passover (for paedocommunion). However, even though women served at the Tabernacle, and even young children had a place in the courts of Solomon’s Temple, not even Israel’s children qualified as legal representatives with Sanctuary access.¹⁵My friend Luke Welch totally screws this up, architecturally-speaking, here. Both Circumcision and Passover concerned the households of men, and their earthly offspring. What we see in the books of Exodus and Leviticus is the establishment of divisions within Israel to accommodate the house of God. Just as Israel was the “firstborn” of God, corporately speaking, the Levites were set apart as legal representatives for those sons of Israel.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (Numbers 3:11-13)

This shifted the focus from the Land and womb to the Sanctuary, from the firstborn of the womb to the firstborn from the dead, or, in Tabernacle terms, from bloody flesh to fragrant smoke. Where the Bronze Altar represented the four-cornered earthly inheritance, the Incense Altar represented the coming “heavenly country,” the inheritance of the resurrected saints, the courts of God. The architecture on Mount Sinai prefigured the ascension of the saints at the end of the Old Covenant as a mature, human representative government in heaven. To use Circumcision and Passover as proof of the veracity of paedosacraments is to lift raw flesh into heaven without purification by fire. Paedosacraments are the liturgical equivalent of the tower of Babel, or gathering sticks on the Sabbath to warm your own tent instead of gathering around God’s. Sons of men are not Sons of God.

The conclusion is clearly that children, indeed anyone, is welcome in the New Covenant house of God. The Garden is now free of the accuser, so Eve now rules as co-regent with her Bridegroom. Baptism and table are thus for “both men and women” (Acts 2:18; 5:14; 8:12) as New Covenant “Levites” (men) and “Nazirites” (men and women), but restricting the sacraments to believers does not exclude the children any more than restricting ministry of the Word to men excludes the women. Just as the restriction of priesthood to “Adams” who “died” made worship a safe place for women and children, so the restriction of priesthood to “Adams” and “Eves” under the New Covenant makes worship a safe place not only for our children, but for anyone else who wishes to attend. New Covenant worship is open worship, a drama for all the world to see, and the sacraments are part of the liturgical story which we dare not get wrong. They do not constitute “an intellectual fence” which divides the Church any more than did the divisions within Israel upon Sinai or around the Tabernacle.

Now, we all know a picture is worth a thousand words. It has taken me almost three thousand to explain an inconsistency I noticed by comparing Exodus 24 and Covenant Renewal Worship in a single mental image. This might be why software companies are employing people with varying degrees of autism to find bugs in computer code. I am no genius, but I do know my way around the house.

In his book Why Baptize Babies?, Mark Horne writes:

The apostle Peter makes it clear that God’s Covenant still involves the promise to our children:

For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:39) We who now profess Christ are among those who are “far off,” whom the Lord has called to himself. Just like those to whom Peter first preached, the promise is not only for us but for our children as well. (p. 23)

So much that has been written about baptism is nebulous and confused. My friend Mark’s short book, however, is an excellent summary of this doctrine. Having his points honed into silver bullets makes them easier to discern, and easier to deflect!

Another paedobaptist friend, Luke Welch, recently pointed out the very strong connection between Acts 2 and Genesis 17. The promise “to you and your children” is tied to the promise to Abraham, which is wonderful news to those who want to use baptism as a sort of “regenerative circumcision” for both males and females.

Mark and Luke want to turn Acts 2 into the beginning of another “Abrahamic” genealogy, rather than the end of the old one. Acts 2 is not a new beginning in that sense. Genesis 17 and Acts 2 are the “bookends” of the fleshly Messianic genealogy. But the coming of the Spirit of God, and the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ, was putting an end to the social division of circumcision. Baptism has social implications, but its heart is not carnal but ethical. Peter’s words do not mean what Mark and Luke want them to mean. They are reading them through their doctrinal construct, which overrides both the Covenant context and the historical context of the text.

The words in Acts 2 were spoken to the last “generation” of the children of Abraham. Read the passage. The hearers were Jews and proselytes, but all were within the bounds of the circumcision. These words were a Covenantal proclamation by God’s prophets to all members of the circumcision. This means they are a warning of coming Covenant Sanctions, which entail both blessings and curses. In 40 years there would be no more circumcision, at least none recognized by the One True God.

Peter addresses them as “Israel” a number of times, and ends with “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” If these people believed, their children would be saved, not from eternal judgment but from the horrors coming upon Judaism across the empire. Quoting Thomas Madden’s Empires of Trust, Peter Leithart writes:

Madden examines the Jewish War (66-70 AD) in some detail, using it as an illustration of the difficulty of controlling religiously motivated terrorism, and he interestingly points out that Diaspora Jews not only celebrated the exploits of Palestinian guerillas but also initiated conflicts in their own cities:

“As news of the violence in Jerusalem spread [in 66], the killing was mirrored across the region and then the empire. . . . Diaspora Jews sympathized with their coreligionists, but few would condone this sort of slaughter.  And yet, in some places in the Middle East, Jews celebrated the massacre of Romans.  Several cities with large Jewish populations saw open warfare between them and their Gentile neighbors. . . .

“In places like Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Philippi, Tyre, and Ascalon, the Jews had the worst of it, with many thousands killed.  In other places like Sebaste, Gaza, Anthedon, Gaba, and the Decapolis it was the Jews who won out, massacring the Gentiles.”  After six thousand Romans were killed in Caesarea Maritima, the citizens of Damascus “poured into the streets killing Jews wherever they could find them.”

This is of interest partly because of the light it sheds on the New Testament. Paul and the other apostles write to Christian communities scattered about the Mediterranean about a coming day of retribution. On a preterist reading of the NT, these are likely references to the Jewish War and AD 70. But why would Christians in Corinth or Rome care? Madden’s information clarifies this: As in the book of Esther, the conflict of “true Jews” and the “Agagites” is not confined to a single region or city but spreads throughout the empire. [1]

To claim that these words to the house of Israel are the beginning of new promises to the Jew Gentile church rather than being an announcement of the coming fulfillment of an old promise (and thus its historical end) is a terrible misuse of the text.

How do we know that his mention of “the children” is Abrahamic in scope?

In two ways:

1) Because if they rejected Peter’s words, they, their children, and all the Jews within the empire would fall under the curse of the Mosaic Law when it fell for the final time. When Jesus said,

“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.” (Luke 23:28)

he was not speaking to the Church. And neither was Peter on the Day of Pentecost. He was putting Israel on the altar for the final offering. Just as the Lord called Adam to confess what he had done, so the prophets were again calling Israel to confess what she had done and be forgiven.

This was a call to reject all confidence in the flesh of Abraham and to embrace the Spirit of Abraham. The only flesh of Abraham which mattered was no in heaven, presented as blameless to God. Circumcision was now meaningless. The nation had taken its Messianic genealogy and turned genealogy into an idol. She would suffer the destruction of that idol. All the genealogies were destroyed with the Temple, along with 6000 women and children who sought protection in its cloisters which collapsed during the final battle. God was cutting off the genealogical Covenant. Flesh was coming to an end. He did not replace it with another genealogical Covenant. He transformed the very nature of the Covenant by putting it through the fire (1 Corinthians 3:15).

2) Because 3000 souls were added to the Church that day. The reference is to the 3000 people who had taken the Covenant oath at Sinai and immediately broken it. The key here is not genealogical (tribal/cultural) division but an “ethical” profession based upon faith in God’s word and character. The Day of Pentecost was a reversal of the events at Sinai because these people had heard and believed. Infants cannot take the Covenant oath, even though they are under the shelter of those who can. Baptism is for those who can take the “oath of allegiance” to Jesus, the profession of faith. This is why Paul says:

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is for those whose hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit, and repented and believed. It is not genealogical. To make it so is to undo what Christ achieved.

So, does God not care about children? Certainly He does. But God also cares about the entire world, and He delegated authority over it to a man, who messed it up. Children are blessed or cursed at the hands of their parents, who are to be trees of righteousness, food and shelter. Baptism is for those who are righteous trees, that is, qualified by God as His representatives, as Adam should have been. We bring our children to Jesus because He was baptized, qualified, not because they need to be. There is no more social division.

As baptized saints, we represent Him to the world and speak His words. That’s what baptism is about, so to turn it into a new circumcision is to say that only the Church, as a genealogy/tribe, is answerable to God, when in fact, all nations are now called to repent.

____________________________________
[1] See Peter Leithart, Jewish War.

The miraculous gifts given to the firstfruits church are part of a very large pattern, one which we can can see thwarted in the Garden of Eden, and presented as laws in the Ten Commandments. It is the “song of the Woman” after the crushing of the serpent. It is a “legal testimony” that the Word of God is true. We see this epitomized in the life of Paul the apostle, who sought every opportunity to testify in court concerning the resurrection of Jesus. In the greater picture, the witness of the firstfruits church is this part of the picture in the history of the world. That legal witness continues today, but in the first century it had a special purpose, and that was to divide the Jews into “two goats,” two women, Hagar and Sarah (the past and the future) and bring down the curses of the Covenant upon those who rejected the Gospel. The gift of tongues was part of that miraculous witness, a corroborrated legal witness in the courtroom of God, [1] and the purpose of this “Babelic” gift was completed when the Herods and their Temple, the “Babylon” of the day, was destroyed. [2] Consequently, the miraculous gifts ended with the firstfruits church. The time of “childhood” for the Church was over. [3]

Luke Welch has some related observations which are interesting, and he, like Jordan, demonstrates how much we Christians miss because we fail to read the Bible as a united book.

As I read along in Numbers, I keep seeing things that Paul has latched onto. For example, Paul says (1 Corinthians 14.5-9, 24):

“Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?… If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?”

The punch line to this whole thing is at the bottom, but let’s focus on the bugle thing first. Look at Numbers 10.1-3, 9:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Make two silver trumpets. Of hammered work you shall make them, and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for breaking camp. And when both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the entrance of the tent of meeting. … And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies.”

The bugle gets two things to happen which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:

1. Gets the congregation to assemble
2. Gets the congregation to be ready for battle by breaking camp while making a memorial directed at God.

Having established the passage connection, notice another huge one, which we see when God gives “the Spirit which is on Moses” out to the 70 elders, and two have not shown up at the elder assembly. They were caused to prophecy even in the camp, and Joshua wants to help by saying, “My lord Moses, stop them!” What is Moses’ reply?

But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 10.29)

Remember that? Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14.5). Paul’s heart is Moses’ ministry desire too.

I note also that this prophetic period for both Paul and Moses:

1. was a forty year period between defeat of one enemy and another
2. Pharaoh, and Philistines (for Moses)
3. Caesar, and Satanic Israel (for Paul)
4. Moses took the people INTO the land for conquest.

Throughout Paul’s writing, he is calling the church to the conquest of the whole world, and at the end of those forty years they will be forced out of the land, in a sense, after the destruction of Jerusalem.

_______________________________
[1] See A Tongue of Gold.
[2] See Three Babylons.
[3] See Cessation.

Exodus 4 shows us what happens when you take up the staff God has commanded you to take up. It changes from death into rulership: from a snake into a scepter. Let us see how this works out with the command to “take up the cross, and follow me” (Mt 16.24).

Then Moses answered, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you.’” The Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A staff.” And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it… But the Lord said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail”—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand— “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”… “And take in your hand this staff, with which you shall do the signs.” (Ex 4:1-6, 17:)

Later a staff with a snake on it is lifted up (Num 21.8), and Jesus tells Nicodemus that this image is a pattern of Jesus on the cross (John 3.14).

Moses’ staff divides the sea; Jesus’ cross divides the temple veil. Moses’ staff brings drink from the rock of Christ in the wilderness; Jesus cross provides drink from the rock of Christ at the Lord’s table (Ex 14.15, Mt 27.51, 1 Cor 10.1-4).

The cross is only death until you grab it by the tail. Then you will rule by it. It will be a throne. You will do signs by it. It will be a word to the world. Then by the cross, you will divide from sin, and divide from death, and be divided off as one of the holy. Then they may believe that the Lord, the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to us.

ART: Marc Chagall, God Turns Moses’ Staff into a Serpent, from The Story of Exodus

Part 1   |   Part 2   |   Part 3

Strange Fire

We’ve reach the central “cycle” of the book of Numbers, the attempt by Balak to destroy Israel. To the unbeliever, it is a story about a talking donkey. For believers, it is a story about a wicked prophet and a carnal people. For those with a wide angle “Bible Matrix” lens, the entire landscape suddenly comes into focus as something familiar and terrifying.

Firstly, we should get our bearings. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it seems we have seven major cycles in the book of Numbers. The first cycle laid out the basic structure of the rest of the book. What was at the centre—Testing—of cycle one? Numbers 5, the strange chapter where a woman suspected of adultery was to be subjected to the “inspection of jealousy.”

Basically, the woman would drink the Covenant, and God would become an internal witness, seeing her from the inside out. Whatever was behind her legal witness, the truth or the lie, would be reflected in her own flesh and in her offspring. In Numbers 5, the priest recites the process aloud (external law) and then carries it out (internal inspection). Like some kind of liturgical X-ray, this process would take what went on behind closed doors (whether good or evil) and expose it, shout it from the rooftops. [1]

That “personal” inspection is what all Israel will now pass through. All the events so far in Numbers have been leading up to this “liturgically.” Testing in the Garden of Eden involved a false king (the serpent), a false prophet (Adam, who failed to speak the Word) and the Woman. The scene is set for a stadium-sized reenactment of the events of Genesis 3. The individuals of Eden have become “corporate.” As Numbers is at the centre of Israel’s sevenfold story, so the story of Balaam and Phinehas is at the centre of Numbers.

Understanding these events “structurally” answers the questions that remain once the action is over and the blood thickens on the ground. One thing we must keep in mind is the sacrificial structure of these events. Firstfruits put Israel on the Altar. Pentecost puts fire on the Altar. The test here is whether Israel will tolerate strange fire not only in their Tabernacle, but in their own tents and hearts.

Closeup on Numbers 25

What amazing artistry. The first fulfilment of Balaam’s “sceptre” prophecy was Phinehas. And he crushed the “forehead” of Moab by putting a spear through—circumcising—the offspring of the serpent. [5]

One final thought on this closeup. Can you think of another event which involved a “cup of testing,” spiritual harlotry, a spear, and a grant of High Priestly Succession? Yes, the death and resurrection of Christ as Adam. Then the entire process is repeated “corporately” for Israel as Eve, the harlot-bride who must drink the cup and be cut in two by the jealousy of God, into flesh and Spirit.

Okay, back to the major structure.

The beauty of this literature is sublime. And its fractal structure silences every critic. Every mouth will be stopped. Help me to share this material where you can. The lack of interest by Christians stuns me.

_______________________________________
[1] See Behind Closed Doors.
[2] See the notes at the end of What Lies Beneath.
[3] I use the “scroll” division of the commandments because it fits the matrix. See Bible Matrix II for a full explanation.
[4] See Esther and the Ten Words.
[5] See The Circumcision of Satan.

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.