Anyone who has seen the film or the play Seven Brides for Seven Brothers knows that it is about seven wild backwoods men who become civilized through the process of learning to interact with women. But what makes it fascinating, and very biblical, is that it isnʼt just about seven brothers marrying seven women.

A guest post by Steven Opp

In Seven Brides, the story is about one brother, the “head”, or the Adam (which just happens to be the characterʼs name) getting married, and then his “body” of brothers following his example. This is the pluralization or spiritualization of man. It moves from a physical one-man to a sevenfold spiritual man.

I like to say theology is as easy as 1-2-3 because the Trinity is found everywhere, and it is the unseen reason why this musical works so well: it is tuned in at a very deep level to the shape of humanity and the ways in which we image God. Whenever you see three related concepts, you can probably bet they are Trinitarian. With the aid of what I hope is a familiar plot, let’s take a look at how the three persons of Trinity are expressed in four earthly domains. This will allow us to make some correspondences between the domains so we can hear how each of these realms “speaks” to the others. This probably sounds complicated and technical, but give it a go and you will see it is quite straightforward and intuitive.

Line 1:

Father

The first part of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is the “Father” section because it is a song of creation. The Father is the one who speaks the creation into being. Any story that starts with a man joyfully singing about what he is creating is a story that starts by showing a Father. And what is Adam creating here? “Pretty and trim”, “Heavenly eyes”—he basically sings his bride into existence and by the end of the song he has found exactly what he is singing about!

Priest

Among all the rude men Millie has encountered as a waitress, Adam is set apart/holy. He is covered in animal skins as one who is ready to sacrifice for her: “Iʼd swap my gun and Iʼd swap my mule… Ifʼn you would say ʻI doʼ”.

Physical

As mentioned, Adam is in animal skins. He is singing about Millieʼs physical beauty:

“Bless Your Beautiful Hide!” Like the first man, he looks around until he sees a mate suitable to him. The attraction between them is almost purely biological, love at first sight, as she doesnʼt know him from, well, Adam. Natural as natural can be!

Husband

The focus in this section is on Adam, as he is the one singing the opening number. This is in contrast to the following sections of the film.

Line 2:

Son

The heart of the film is the most “incarnational” part of the narrative. Millie, who really is the “savior” of the story, has left the heavenly town and is now living with “sinners,” the ruffian brothers. She wins their allegiance through serving them and disciples them in the ways of courtship. She teaches them to pray and to turn the other cheek.

King

While Millie rules the house in regards to social matters, Adam leads the brothers to war both in the barn-raising fight and is their Roman Emperor in their campaign to steal the “Sobbinʼ Women”.

Social

While the early scenes in the film focused on physical attraction and beautiful landscapes, the middle of the story is about the social interactions, mostly between the brothers and the women: dancing, kidnapping, fighting, reconciling, etc.

Wife

Besides the Sobbinʼ Women song, most of the screen time in this section is about Millie. She is the main character, and the center of the entire story is her rebuking of Adam for leading the charge to steal the girls. This is when the Pentecostal/bridal fire falls, as happens at the center of every good narrative.

An interesting side note about this fire falling: It divides the social construction of the brothers, separating head from body, as we see in the Ascension offering in Leviticus one, pictured in the ascension of Moses on Sinai, and fulfilled in the ascension of Christ. She has in effect circumcised the family. Adam decides to go up the mountain to the hunting cabin for the winter, while the brothers are banished to sleep in the barn.

Line 3:

Holy Spirit

Seven is a spiritual number. The seven married brothers at the end of the film represent the spiritual man, as opposed to the one physical father-man at the beginning. The spiritualizing of a man is the pluralization of a man. The Bible begins with a physical Adam and ends with the spiritual Adam who has seven spirits (Rev. 3:1, 4:5). His fruit, his multiplication, his “seed” is not merely physical or social but also ethical, a new animus, a new heart for a people.

Also, the Person of the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. The final section concerns reunification, the reunion of the women with their fathers, the town with the backwoods family, and Adam and Millie.

Prophet

As the Spirit is the bond between Father and Son, so the prophet is the link between priest and king. Prophets counsel kings about the things of God. Prophets also have insight into the future, and can move armies with words. Adam is a prophet when he tells the brothers that if they donʼt return the girls to their families that they will be in constant conflict with them for years to come. The brothers heed the words of the prophet.

Ethical

As the Spirit is the bond between the Father and Son, the ethical is the unity between physical and social. It is voluntarily synthesizing your nature and nurture for the greater good, and usually involves some kind of “giving back.” The brothers put their natural strength to use in an ethical quest to chase down the women who are running from their families in order to return them. This results in peace and finally in marriage, which is an expression of the ethical heart of any culture, combining the physical (sex) and social (covenant) to open the future (succession).

Child

This Spirit section is about connections. The connection between husband and wife is the children. It is the news that Adam has had a child which causes him to return and reconcile with Millie. Also, having his own child is what internally motivated Adam to tell his brothers not to use violence to defend their women since he now understands how the girlsʼ fathers felt when their daughters were taken. He now has the same spirit as the men of the city. He is no longer just a natural man, a man of the woods. He is now a civilized man, a man of the people.

(Note from Mike Bull: Steven wrote this post as a development of his insightful comments on a rant by Tim Bayly criticising a post by Rich Bledsoe, where Tim sadly fails to understand Rich before ridiculing him.)

See also A Titanic Reality.

or Marriage is a Glory Box, a Hope Chest

In 1 Peter 3:7, the apostle writes:

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

The phrase “according to knowledge” (gnosis) is rendered “in an understanding way” in the NKJV and ESV. But is the exhortation for the husband to understand his wife, or to understand the source of his authority as her husband?

I believe the “Covenant literary” structure not only answers this question, but reveals the sentence to be an Edenic gem. [1] Firstly, it recapitulates the totus Christus pattern found throughout the Scriptures:

The references to the Red Sea and the Jordan allude to this pattern in Israel’s journey from Egypt to Canaan, but we can trace it right back to the first Man and Woman.

Of course, this is not what happened, but based upon countless later patterns, we can accurately reconstruct it. (I know some will be skeptical, but there are many hundreds of examples. Trust me.)

Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1, with Day 7 being the “future” of Adam’s race benefiting from his continuing mediation. That is about as far as we can speculate, but my point here is that Genesis 2 is also a forming and a filling. The first part concerns Adam as priestly “head” and the second concerns Eve as his (bone and flesh) “body.” Having a “people” in the mother of all living moves Adam from priesthood to kingdom (hence the true kingdom did not arrive until Pentecost).

The goal was for Adam to testify on God’s behalf before the serpent, receive the Spirit of God through his obedience, and share that Spirit with Eve, who would sing the kind of head-crushing song we hear from Bible women, songs that sound so strange to modern ears. This third stage is prophetic. Adam has spoken. Eve has sung in response. Now that they are of one mind, understanding the mind of God, His purpose in their testing, they are both wise as serpents and harmless as doves. They become God’s voice, mediating between heaven and earth.

Peter’s Literary Brilliance

We are now in a position to appreciate Peter’s brief statement. Because it echoes a pattern built into the rest of the Bible, these few words contain unfathomable depths. Not only is a marriage a “new Covenant,” it is a new Creation, a new Tabernacle within which God is pleased to dwell as long as its priesthood is faithful. If the husband’s priestly office is not fulfilled, he will not have true kingdom.

This sevenfold process is not only an architectural pattern, it also reveals why there are no “priestesses” under either the Old Covenant or the New. Any authority which Woman has is derived from the accountability of the Man. [3]

Viewed as a chain/process of Covenant authority, line 3 would mean “according to the doctrine/wisdom” given to Adam as mediator. Adam received the Law before the construction of Eve. He was to minister to her in the light of that Law, which is what he failed to do.

The architecture reveals the use of the word “vessel” to be priestly. “Weaker” can mean weakness either physically or morally. In relation to the Law, it may refer to the desire of women for male headship, that is, “leadership by example.” If Adam will not lead her, another spirit will lead her into harlotry. As Christ sends His Spirit to gather the Church, so the Adam’s self-sacrifice “constructs” or edifies Eve. The husband’s meekness towards God results in the wife’s meekness towards her husband, reversing the curse of tyranny in Genesis 3:16.

The earthen “vessel without strength” at 3 requires filling at 4, is fragrant at 5, and presented chaste to God at 6. Adam’s role, as mediator with a heavenly commission, is to take flesh, open its eyes and open its mouth. What God did for Adam physically, so Adam is to do for Eve legally. The woman begins as a possession but Adam, the regent, is to lead her to the role of co-regent. We see this in the difference between the Ten Words in Exodus and Deuteronomy, and in the process of Esther becoming more than simply another bride. [4] Of course, we see it in the difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant brides, expressed in baptism (robe of office) being given to “both men and women,” women allowed into the Sanctuary, and the inclusion of women as Covenant witnesses, “prophetesses,” beginning after the resurrection. The true empowerment of Woman can only ever come through the submission of Man to God.

The Architecture of Sex

Human sexuality is an expression of the Trinity. It is an architecture also found in the Tabernacle. The Most Holy Place is the authority of the Father (the Ark), the Holy Place is the priestly submission (Table), kingly authority (Lampstand) and prophetic witness (Incense) of the Son. Finally, the courts of the nations are the gathering of the Bride by the Spirit (Eve is the multiplier). The pattern throughout the Bible is:

This is also the pattern of the entire Bible, as well as the deep structure of the book of Revelation. It is also hinted at in the search for a bride for Isaac, and in many other narratives.

Interestingly, we can also see the triune architecture in

Man and Woman (Genesis 1 – physical attributes)
Husband and Wife (Genesis 2 – social offices)
Father and Mother (Genesis 3 – historical continuity)

The evolutionary assumptions of modernism first deconstructed our understanding of man and woman as physical images of God (temples for His Spirit), mostly for the purpose of freedom from Moses (as some have testified). Without recognition of the authority of God, the purpose of “male and female” became arbitrary. Sex (gender) was reduced to the physiological, flesh without a divine commission. Western males and females were rendered naked, and bereft of hope.

This rejection of heavenly authority then led to the deconstruction of marriage, which had previously integrated Western culture, giving it a backbone and rendering it upright. “Husband and wife” as offices before God also became meaningless. Marriage ceased to be seen as sacrificial ministry, and the house was eventually left desolate. False gods were welcomed in, which led to adultery and then further perversion.

Our now spineless culture is at the stage where Father and Mother are also being deconstructed, through a man-made narcissistic version of marriage — love of the same rather than “the other.” Since male and female are no longer gifts from God, and husband and wife are no longer a means of exercising those gifts, Father and Mother are now also meaningless. We are left with Human, Partner and Parent. This is the social outcome of the rejection of the heaven-and-earth, head-and-body divide. There is no authority, no submission and thus no ministry.

According to Knowledge

I hope you noticed the allusions to the pattern of events in the New Testament. It is also the pattern of events in the apostate churches around us today. In both cases, the Word of God was well-known.

This tragic deconstruction is a threefold process of sin reaching its full maturity in our culture, with each step being the product (usually after a generation, around 40 years) of the previous sin. [5] God is tearing down the house in three stages, so He gets the glory.

Romans 1 outlines this process for us. Three times, God says He “gave them up” to what they desired, because they would not listen. The next step for our rebellious culture is a quick decline. We have sacrificed our historical continuity on the altar of unbridled desire. Atheists have taken the inheritance of 2000 years of Christianity and blown it all, like Hollywood brats, in a few decades. Say goodbye to Western Culture, with all its heavenly blessings.

Ideas have consequences, and the desire to be “in control” of nature, like gods, leads to nature being empowered by God to cut us off. Abortion, sterility, sexual perversion, social disintegration (and the mental illness that follows) and an epidemic of sexual diseases, are the outcomes of the dogma of Darwinism. It is highly ironic that Darwinism turned out to be an exercise of the right to extinction.

Empowered by the knowledge of God, the family is the spring of good culture. Rejection of that knowledge results in a poisoned spring, and God will put a stop to the bitterness. His judgment is entirely just. Our sin is not simply a “wandering astray.” It is high-handed rebellion from a culture with more knowledge of God than any before. Worse, those with a perverse desire relabel it as a “call” from God. The Spirit departs. The song is silenced. The Land and the womb are rendered barren.

The fact that many intelligent Christians fail to understand the importance of Genesis 1-3 quite amazes me. [6] It turns out that those early chapters are also the key to understanding the New Testament, as the pattern is replayed in individuals, families, churches and states.

It seems Peter, by the Spirit, was fully aware of the inescapable sacredness of marriage. As in Eden, marriage is itself a “glory box,” a hope chest filled with promises for the future. But today it is a marriage made in heaven, that between Christ and the Church, and Jesus will never forsake us to the serpent as Adam forsook Eve. He ministers to us “according to knowledge.”

Photo: Medieval Marriage Chest.

________________________________
[1] So much for Peter being an ignorant fisherman. See Uneducated Fishermen? Nuh-uh.
[2] Chart from Bible Matrix, p. 76.
[3] See The Throne of Eve.
[4] See Esther and the Ten Words.
[5] See God Gave Them Up.
[6] See When the Grid Goes Down.

A blog post from my friend Albert Garlando, republished here with his permission.

Marriage, Divorce and the Gospel

Jesus is interrogated by the religious ‘mob’ concerning his views on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). The mob are trying to get him to make a call on the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) provision for divorce and remarriage. The 1st Century rabbis did not agree in their own interpretations of this, so they pestered Jesus about it.

Their big question was: “What makes divorce OK?”

True to form, Jesus’ response is, “You have missed the point and are asking the wrong question.”

The better question to be asking is “How can we prevent divorce?” or perhaps, “How should we understand (and enjoy!) God’s idea of marriage?”

In reading the Bible, you’ll soon see that divorce is never required or encouraged – it is only ever regulated. The OT passage provided a regulatory protection for the woman to make sure that she was not unfairly discriminated against or ostracised.

The passage in Deuteronomy suggests that there was at that time (circa 1400 B.C.E.) a practice in the Middle East that involved the exchange and trade of women in the guise of marriage, divorce and remarriage – this is what Moses is discouraging. (see Laney for more detail).

Any plans that a man might have concocted to profit by divorcing his wife, then having her marry another, get an inheritance or gift from him and then return to the first husband were outlawed by this clause in Moses’ teaching. This use of women as a type of trading chattel was an abominable practice that God’s people ought to have separated themselves from, thus the command in Deuteronomy.

In both that instance, and the instance where Jesus is being challenged, they had lost sight of the original design and purpose of marriage: God created it, and it shows us his unity.

At the time there were two main view points. The disciples of the rabbi Shammai held to a strict interpretation (divorce only for unfaithfulness) while the disciples of Hillel held to a lenient interpretation (divorce for almost any reason).

Instead of taking sides with either Shammai or Hillel, Jesus went back to Moses and the first marriage (Gen.1:27; 2:21–25). From the beginning, marriage meant one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime. Moses’ commandment in Deut. 24:1–4 was a concession to the Jews because of their hardness of heart. It does not represent God’s ideal for marriage.

The added subtly of the encounter goes beyond an interpretive debate though. The Pharisees are setting Jesus up against Herod (the Roman ruler – and the one who had John the Baptist murdered.) Herod had married his brother’s former wife. This is a high profile case of divorce and remarriage. If they can get Jesus to come out against Herod it will give them a chance to charge him with a capital offense and have him killed.

Instead, Jesus brings them back to the final authority and sufficiency of scripture – This is God’s intention for marriage: i.e. it’s a picture of the unity of God and his love for us and desire to be reconciled.

Ephesians 5:31-32 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

In the gospel, we are re-joined with God as our Father through Jesus. When Adam and Eve sinned they separated themselves from God and we have followed in their footsteps. The gospel brings us back together with God. The gospel is all about reconciliation and forgiveness. In any marriage there is going to be many opportunities for you to receive and to experience both. Acknowledging you both are in need of the gospel is going to go a long way towards understanding (and enjoying!) God’s best for your marriage.

Here’s a great post from Doug Hayes’ blog, republished here with his permission.

When Rich Bledsoe was with us at Family Camp he mentioned a paper he wrote: Sex and the City, [PDF] which we have now placed on the RCC website. It is an interesting piece of  biblical social commentary worth thinking about.

Bledsoe contrasts the great ancient cities with the great city of God, the New Jerusalem and their respective sexual commitments and activities. At the base of his comments is the presupposition that it is important for us to think about cities because “the entire planet is ‘metropolizing.’ Everywhere, human  beings are leaving their rural roots and are moving into the city.”

He says that, biblically, cities are portrayed as and symbolized as women. “Both of the cities at the Bible’s end are feminine, and  both are symbolized by women… The first city [in Revelation] is Babylon the Great who becomes the Whore of  Babylon [metaphorically, Jerusalem]. The second is the new Jerusalem who becomes the Bride of Christ… The power of sexual relationship, and the fact of metropolis belong together. The city is the great trysting place, the place of renewal or destruction of relationship, the place where souls and bodies are  bought and sold, or where truth and fidelity create new life.”

What is so helpful in this article is the assertion that “the sexualization and exclusiveness of marriage was the gift of the Torah and  of Judaism… the model for both parenting and for marriage as found in the Old Testament is found in Jehovah’s relationship to Israel and Jerusalem as Father and finally as Husband. All peoples model themselves on their gods, and Israel likewise modeled herself on the God she belonged to.”

As post-Christian society has emerged in the West, corresponding Christian sexual morality has been receding as a foundation for cultural morality. Christian ethics is being replace by pagan “polymorphous sexuality” that is reflective of ancient worldviews and practices. And just as Christianity has always been intolerant of other religious and ethical systems, so too, modern society is increasingly hostile toward both Christ and Christian morality. Just as most ancient pagan cultures used sex as an expression of their religious commitments and cultus, so too, modern cultures use sex as an expression of liberation from Christianity. Again, Bledsoe:

Both of these cities (in Revelation: Babylon the Great and the New Jerusalem) are now active historical powers… Real cities in the real world partake of the reality of both of these cities right now… A city that worships like Babylon the Great, will be a city that models its sexual relationships after the harlot and the beast and the kinds. A city that worships as a part of the new Jerusalem will model its marital covenant after the Bride and her Husband. The question is which city will dominate in any given city in the world in which we live. One city is corrupt..and is under judgment…given to destruction. The other city is the city of the glory of God and the glorified humanity… where ultimately all human potentialities are fulfilled… The first city is marked by sexual debauchery… the second is marked by fidelity and love in the bonds of marriage.

He goes on to demonstrate that any culture that lacks sexual discipline and commitment to monogamous marriage will be unable to sustain their cultural energy and creativity, resulting in weakness and decline. True cultural greatness requires moral and intellectual discipline and focus that is undissipated by meaningless and distracting sexuality. Without a committed and future-oriented sexuality – no culture has any meaningful  future to anticipate.

“Then Jesus told them: You can be sure that tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you ever will!   When John the Baptist showed you how to do right, you would not believe him. But these evil people did believe. And even when you saw what they did, you still would not change your minds and believe.” (Matthew 21:31-32)

James Jordan teaches you to observe the universals in Scripture. I believe one of the most important is the Totus Christus pattern, head and body, and its counterfeits and distortions.

As mentioned around here a couple times (sorry, a couple of times. I’ve been reading too many Americans), the curse upon Adam concerned his head, and his responsibility to provide for and protect the body. The curse upon Eve concerned her body, her role in producing offspring. Both curses were a limited form of barrenness.

But what of the relationship between head and body? James Jordan writes:

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

Join now for a year for $15!

]]> http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/12/16/pimp-my-bride/feed/ 2 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/10/06/infinite-room-3/ http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/10/06/infinite-room-3/#comments Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:21 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=6064 The Fruitful Field

“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” 2 Cor 11:2

Women are Complex

In Eden, as priest to Eve, Adam’s role was to continually bring her to the Father. She was put “below” Adam in the hierarchy. As the first approach of the High Priest on the Day of Covering — with the blood of a bull — Adam would present himself, standing before God as Mediator (head):

F A T H E R  > <  S O N  +  B R I D E

Adam’s job was to bring Eve “between” as the fruit, the evidence, of Covenant relationship. By being faithful to the law, he would open and maintain a clean, safe, Holy Place — a firmament — a house for the bride. The second approach of the High Priest was to cover the body, the nation. In this, he presented the blood of the first goat as the faithful bride (goat hair, symbolising the Lord’s cloud of “bridal” glory, covered the Tabernacle). Like the glory between the Father and the Son in heaven, a glorious Eve was both the fruit of Adam’s obedience, and her future fruitfulness a gift from Father to Son:

F A T H E R  >  B R I D E  < S O N

We see this imaged in the search for and presentation of godly Covenant brides in Genesis. Eliezar and Jacob seek brides for presentation to the Covenant fathers.

Adam’s obedience to the Covenant law would have filled the world with godly offspring as a New Creation. Adam’s commission was to keep the Garden and to be fruitful and multiply, to maintain the “field of Covenant fruitfulness” through to and fro with God. The test in the Garden was to image the faithfulness within the Trinity. Maintaining the “creative equation” of the Covenant would eventually fulfill the commission.

Chaos

When the angelic minister distorted the message, the Covenant law, Adam would have recognised this false spirit.

F A L S E   F A T H E R  >  B R I D E  < S O N

But he failed to restore the image of the Father for the sake of Eve. He did not step in as guardian:

F A L S E   F A T H E R   ||   S O N  +  B R I D E

Like Esau, Adam despised the Covenant and the inheritance. Instead of being brought into the Covenant, Eve became a “foreign wife” with her own gods. Like the wives of Esau, she became a bitter spring in the eyes of Adam’s Father.

F A L S E   F A T H E R  >  F A L S E   B R I D E  <  F A L S E   S O N

At Conquest, the Holy Ones, God’s governing elders, rejoice over the destruction of the Covenant breakers. Later, this is the song of the various Covenant women. In the Revelation it is the song of the firstfruits church, the chaste bride, and army of virgins presented to the Father by Christ. But in Eden there were only the angels, and one in particular. Following the pattern, Satan’s joy was the presentation of a harlotrous bride, a corrupt “church,” to the Father for destruction. This is exactly what we see in Numbers 5, the “jealous inspection.” And of course, this is the exact plan we see in the “presentation” to Jesus of the woman caught in adultery. [1] The answer here was the same: substitutionary blood.

Instead of making the first couple “the meat on the table,” God provided substitutes. Due to this intervention — a covering of blood — the “fractal equation” of humanity did not die, and the corrupt “Holy One” did not get to rejoice for long.

Instead of sinners, innocents (animals) were put in the place of the Adam as head and Eve as body: the first Day of Covering. The blood was evidence of the satisfaction of the fulfilment of the demands (ethics) of the Covenant, just as Adam’s blood on the ground would have been evidence of the origin of Eve. This maintained the “creative equation” but only in an imperfect, temporary and pedagogical way. This imperfect Covenant required frequent renewal by blood.

A Flaming Sword, To and Fro

The process from Adam’s anointing to his expulsion follows the Creation week. It also follows the journey of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. In his deep sleep, Adam was under the sword (Passover – Circumcision). At the Lord’s assessment of his captaincy, he was to be given the sword — as Israel was — to enter the Land as vindicated conqueror (Atonement – Pass-Through). Baptism is about presenting oneself to be a mediator, a sword-bearer. [2] But, of course, Adam hid.

An Eve filled with light was the host of Israel, the flaming sword, entering the Promised Land and wiping out — to and fro — the cursed children of the Canaanites. But instead of wielding the sword (baptism), Adam was still under it (circumcision), and Eve would be the mother of the cursed children. (In this case it was the potential for cursed children that needed wiping out, obviously.) This, too, is the scenario that plays out in the Revelation. Herodian worship hid behind circumcision and the bride was not tranfigured. This false bride was destroyed.

Like Saul, Adam had submitted to a different spirit, a counterfeit Covenant. He stepped outside the fruitful field of Covenant with God — the infinite equation — and became barren. Instead of imaging the Father, this son of God imaged the father of lies. [3] As Covenant head, barrenness was symbolised by the sweat on Adam’s brow. As Covenant body, multiplier, Eve’s barrenness was symbolised by difficulty in childbirth. And the to and fro between them, between Covenant head and Covenant body, was also accursed. Covenant marriage disintegrated into bitter subjection: exploitation by the head and insubordination from the body.

Fruitfulness, like resurrection, is an instantaneous act of God, as it was on Day 5. Neither Jesus nor Adam came out of the earth bit by bit over millions of years. Chaos is not the source of fruitfulness. Chaos is fruitfulness gone awry. It is previous order suddenly devoid of the integrating Spirit, the faithful to and fro. There is scattering instead of gathering. Following faithfulness to the Covenant, the Ark of that Covenant gathered Israel in ranks around it, and when in battle it scattered the ordered ranks of their enemies. This is true bride versus false bride.

Two faithful cherubim were deployed as substitute guardians, but there was only one flaming sword between them, flashing to and fro. Back to simple binary. No complex rainbow. Adam was expelled from the fruitful field, the Holy Place, the infinite room.

Next: Infinite Room – 4, Smoke and Mirrors.

_____________________________________________________
[1] See Emancipation of Eve.
[2] See Pass-over and Pass-through and The Angels of Death Are We.
[3] See Fighting Over the Children.

Infinite Room series links here.
INFROOM

]]> http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/10/06/infinite-room-3/feed/ 0 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/09/01/the-waters-below/ http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/09/01/the-waters-below/#comments Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:00:20 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=5875

From James B. Jordan’s Trees and Thorns: [1]

The water in the ground of the garden is associated with Eve.

What Adam was to guard was the Garden, and preeminently Eve, its mistress. This is precisely what he refused to do. Later in the Bible, new Adams meet their Eves at wells, and defend them there. Eliezar met Rebekah at a well, and brought her home to Isaac (Gen. 24:11ff.). Jacob met Rachel at a well, and unsealed it for her — a sign as it turned out of his coming marriage to her (Gen. 29:10-11). Good Shepherd Moses met Zipporah at a well and defended her against bad shepherds (Ex. 2:16-19).

All of these women were outsiders, who were married by representatives of the Messianic line (compare also Joseph, Samson, Solomon, etc). The spring in Eden flowed out to other lands; the messiahs of the Old Testament married foreign women. In fulfillment, Jesus spoke to an outsider Samaritan woman at a well, asked her about her husband(s), and in so doing offered Himself as True Husband to her and her people (John 4:1-22). He associated the water He offered with the Spirit whom He would give (John 4:10, 23-24; 7:37-39).

I discussed this marital imagery briefly in connection with the Laver of Cleansing in Chariots of Water: An Exploration of the Water-Stands of Solomon’s Temple (available from www.biblicalhorizons.com). Here let me add that meeting earthly wives at wells (ground water) is part of the first creation. In heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage, for all are married to the Divine Husband. Thus, the well at which Jesus meets us is heavenly water, the Spirit. As the spring watered the Garden and grew the fruitful trees, so the marriage of woman and man is to be fruitful on earth, and the marriage of Jesus and God’s Daughter (humanity) is to be fruitful unto eternity.

Lastly, the care with which a gardener directs water to cause plants to flourish should be seen as instructive of how a husband should care for his wife and family. One does not grasp or force water, and neither can a man grasp or force his wife.

________________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, Trees and Thorns: A Commentary on Genesis 2-4. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com
Art: Eden, 1930 Lithograph by Abel Pann.

]]> http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/09/01/the-waters-below/feed/ 0 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/02/20/anorexia-nirvana/ http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/02/20/anorexia-nirvana/#comments Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:35:48 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4536

.
God knows us infinitely better than we know ourselves. God has said that celibacy is “not good.” It is not good for the man and not good for the church. A celibate clergy will distort the gospel in subtle ways without meaning to do so, because they are living in an unsatisfactory situation.

If we look at Buddhism and other pantheistic religions, we see that they celebrate sterility, fasting, celibacy, virginity and other anorexic, world-rejecting practices. The same was true of the religions of the Mediterranean at the time Christianity was born.  It is not surprising that such world-rejecting  counterfeit spiritualities infected the Church. The Reformation wisely and rightly  returned to the world-affirming, earthy, joyous,  musical-instrument-worship, wine-drinking, cigar-smoking pro-marital worldview of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Reformation was profoundly correct; Rome and Orthodoxy are profoundly wrong.

(I mentioned fasting. In the Bible, the goal of fasting is to break the fast when the Bridegroom arrives, just as the purpose of virginity is to get rid of it with the bridegroom. In anorexic religion, fasting and virginity are prized statically for their own sakes.)

James B. Jordan, The Liturgy Trap: The Bible Versus Mere Tradition in Worship.

]]> http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/02/20/anorexia-nirvana/feed/ 2 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/01/15/defining-the-covenant/ http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/01/15/defining-the-covenant/#comments Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:18:09 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4223

Personal and structural…

“Jordan’s definition of the covenant is striking. It unveils both the Trinitarian nature of the covenant and the covenantal nature of the Trinity, as well as the connections between a Trinitarian definition of the covenant and the structure of Biblical covenants granted to man. His teaching on the subject is not summarized in any single place, but his work The Law of the Covenant contains a compact and highly suggestive discussion, introducing the basic issues.

In this exposition of Biblical law, Jordan explains the covenant in these words, ‘The term “covenant” is frequently used in Christian theology, but with various shades of meaning. I shall be using it to identify, the personal, binding, structural relationship among the Persons of God and His people.’ As he goes on to show, the notion of a binding personal relationship which is clearly structured is the basic Biblical notion of a covenant.

Marriage, the very first covenantal relationship among men and the foundation of all others is the quintessential covenant. The relationship binds — ’till death.’ It is a structured relationship with authority and roles distributed between husband and wife. It is a personal relationship — ‘husbands love your wives as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it.’ A man and woman living together without the bond of the covenant may have a personal relationship, but they are guilty of fornication. A man and woman married may fulfill the structural requirements of the covenant bond, but fail to love one another, separating the personal from the structural aspect of the marriage covenant.

The covenant oath, the personal love, and the structures of authority and responsibility are all required for a Biblically righteous marriage. What the marriage covenant illustrates is that the covenant is a ‘social structure.’ As Jordan points out, in the Biblical notion of the covenant, law and love, form and freedom, are in harmony. The love of the covenant is expressed not in spite of the oath or in spite of fulfilling the duties of the covenant, but precisely through the solemn taking of an oath and the faithful fulfillment of one’s duty.”

Ralph Allan Smith, James Jordan’s Trinitarianism, www.trinitarianism.com

“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful
than you can possibly imagine.” —Ben Kenobi

Herod and Vader are maggot-filled men. They are the living dead. Christ and Kenobi are willing to die. They become the dead living.

One factor the Bible matrix continually brings out in its various occurrences throughout Scripture is the transformation of knowledge into wisdom — through death. In some profound way, knowledge is singular but wisdom is plural.

The Lord gives Adam the knowledge of the Law, and Adam is expected to obey and become wise. We can see, in his failure to confess his sin, that he was no wiser than before.

Moses silently receives the Law on Sinai, then is tested as Israel’s leader in the wilderness. When we get to Deuteronomy, Moses sits enthroned as wisdom incarnate. It is knowledge digested, bringing death to self, and then being resurrected as wisdom. After Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, He gave the Sermon on the Mount. The male head falls into the ground and dies and the harvested (female) body is sophia, witnessing on street corners.

Men go to Bible college and they know it all. Then the Lord brings a marriage difficulty, a sick child, poverty, bereavement, betrayal, church schism, unemployment, a failed career or some temptation, and Gandalf the Grey is torn apart. God, why are you smashing up everything you built me for? Because I am frankincense, or garlic at the very least. Like these and olives and grapes, I was made to be crushed.[1] And novices are terrible leaders.

Pentecost is the wilderness. It is the Lampstand, the eyes of God watching over us. Trumpets is the wisdom of Deuteronomy. It is the Incense Altar. We have been offered, torn apart, set on fire, and now ascend as holy smoke, a fragrant, mature wisdom that finally commands the respect of God’s armies. We are broken so we can fill others. God makes us into a Promised Land others can inherit. They see our testimony and fear, the beginning of their own wisdom.

Someone wise said we will have trials in one of three areas: marriage, health or finances. [2] This year I have had all three. I’m not complaining. I’m finally starting to stink less and be health to others instead of a canker. The Law kills precisely so that the Spirit can bring life, and resurrection is always plural.

Fighting death makes you death incarnate. Vader learned this lesson in the end. He threw down his idol and submitted to ascension as smoke. He finally joined the rank of the heavenly elders as a bowl of incense, a father of light.

“Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”   1 Corinthians 6:7 

“He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.”  Philippians 1:6

_____________________________
[1] See Toby Sumpter’s much better take on this here, and also Omega Males and True Gravity.
[2] If we are soft-hearted, every marriage (or friendship) trial is an opportunity for greater unity – for greater service.