“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.

Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
Proverbs 31:23

“A Christian is a living, walking, talking testimony to the end of the world—to a cosmic, judicial maturity, the ‘adulthood’ of mankind.”

Doug Wilson is right to emphasize the “eschatological reality” of the final judgment, but surely the requirements and mode of baptism should communicate that reality?

If the process of “salvation through Covenant” is pretty much the same under the New as it was under the Old, as he believes, why did circumcision become baptism? Why the change in the Covenant “road sign” if there’s no real change concerning what’s down the road?

Circumcision and baptism not only meant very different things, they also led to very different things. Yes, they are both signs, but they differed in their means (the roads) and in their ends (their destinations).

The first circumcision led to a miraculous son, who was faithfully placed on the Altar. Circumcision was all about the firstborn, the firstfruits, the “Covenant head.” The Abrahamic Covenant was a genealogical road, with a genealogical end: the Offspring of the Woman. Faith was an important element, but Satan’s target was the Messianic lineage. The end of circumcision was Christ, and Christ brought the end of the Circumcision. The Romans circumcised Jerusalem with a trench and crucified the Jews who tried to escape. Note that many Jews trapped in the city were the hardliners who had traveled from all over the empire to participate in great Passovers to celebrate the completion of Herod’s Temple. It was a spiteful celebration of circumcision, so Jesus cut off the cutting off. [1]

What is the baptism road? What is it a sign of? Most Christians are aware of the texts used to defend credobaptism. But the Bible has a lot more to say about it typologically, and we need to use our imaginations.

I know the “Bible Matrix” isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it gives us a process I call “cross-eyed exegesis.” [2] When we line up many of the Bible’s narratives and visions and architectures, we can suddenly see many different facets as parts of the same diamond. This is because they all appear at the same step in the process of redemption. This is especially beautiful when it comes to baptism. It allows us to line up the springs of Eden, the Jordan, the Laver, the crystal sea, the Israelite robe [3] and the Day of Coverings. We can move beyond the obvious proof texts and identify the Old Covenant types of New Covenant baptism, rather than misreading circumcision as an “Old Covenant baptism.” [4]

During the Old Covenant, the heavenly government ruled over a crystal sea. When God “bowed the heavens” down to earth, the elders of Israel saw Yahweh walking on it. It was flat, “beaten out.” [5] John saw the heavens bowed once again. This time Yahweh was not alone on the sea, and the sea was no longer a sea. It was gone, or rather, it had been reshaped.

Just as God made the Red Sea to part and make a way through for Israel, and just as He made the overflowing Jordan to stand up as a wall, so the heavenly sea now stood up as crystal walls and gates. The round sea had become square. Nature had become culture.

Gates were a place of judgment. Elders sat there and delivered their verdicts. If exile from a city was required, the gate was the best place to execute that sentence. Revelation shows us that the Old Covenant saints and New Covenant martyrs now sit enthroned with Christ. With Him, they administer the New Covenant. [6] The gates of the New Jerusalem are apostolic. The apostles’ doctrine is our rule of faith, and when we believe and obey their legal testimonies, we share in the fellowship they enjoy with the Father and the Son.

The whole point of the Covenant signs was to make their respective eschatological realities real, not just to those inside the boundary, but to those on the outside. Circumcision had a very different eschatology (end) to that of baptism. Circumcision led to death on the Land. Baptism leads to life on the Sea. Circumcision led to fiery Adamic Sinai. Baptism leads to a Zion with four rivers (I guess this would be Evian?).

A credobaptism testifies to the truth of regeneration to those inside the Church, and it generally strokes the fur on those outside the Church the wrong way. It brings the division of the sheep and goats forward in time and makes it visible. To misapply it to a genealogical gathering is to misrepresent both what is now and what is down the road, that is, the current reality of the open gates of the New City and the Day they will close.

How does the Bible define those gates?

“Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.”

This means that our baptisms must represent as closely as possible the final day. The pure may enter. The defiled may not. The difference between sheep and goats is that sheep follow. Baptism itself is the gates of the city, flowing across the world until all that was round is square, until all that was raw is refined, until all that was unholy is holy. Paedobaptism baptizes nature before it is transformed. Judgment is miscarried at its gates.

If we are enthroned with Christ, we, like the resurrected firstfruits (the first resurrection) must be elders in the gates of the “city of elders,” that is, the greeters and bouncers of a city of “eschatological people,” Omega men and Omega women who have met their end. A Christian is a living, walking, talking testimony to the end of the world—to a cosmic, judicial maturity, the “adulthood” of mankind. [7] Circumcision put Israel under angelic guardians. Baptism makes believers into angelic guardians. [8]

This process of “judicial adulthood” in baptism puts the feet of every believer on the springs of the new Eden. And the only feet allowed upon those springs are feet that have heard the invitation of Christ, our Joshua, and consciously, willingly joined His foot upon the neck of the serpent.

Baptism is not about the Head. It is all about the Covenant Body. [9] It is the Trumpets of witness, the Incense Elders, and their enthronement over the waters. Infant baptism doesn’t communicate to the world what a Christian actually is: credobaptism says to the unbelieving world “I am a witness to you in my death and a judge over you in my resurrection.” If we are doing the right thing in, or rather, as, the gates of the city, there will be only Christians in deed.

________________________________________
[1] See Sin City – 1.
[2] See Cross-eyed Exegesis.
[3] See Healing in His… Tassels?
[4] See Walking on Water for the significance of the water motif at Conquest.
[5] See Bowing the Heavens and Firmament of Flesh.
[6] See Jesus’ New Broom and Communion of Saints.
[7] See Judicial Maturity.
[8] See Better Angels.
[9] John’s baptism was limited to Jews (Head), but through death and resurrection, Jesus transformed it into a baptism that united Jews and Gentiles as Christians (Body). Even baptism itself had to be slain and resurrected for all nations.

James Jordan’s paper on capital punishment begins with the very first threat of death in history. The rest of the Bible shows us that the curse was subtly paired with a promise of a more abundant life:

The first instance of capital punishment in the Bible is found in Genesis 2 and 3. God told Adam regarding the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, ” from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, dying you shall die [you shall most certainly die]” (Gen. 2:17).

For reasons that I have set out elsewhere, I believe that the Tree of Knowledge had to do with elevation to a position of judicial “godhood.” Man was created in God’s image, but was not created mature. He was to grow in God’s likeness, and eventually would be invested with the responsibility of passing judgments on good and evil, just as God had passed such judgments in Genesis One. Since God had created every tree without exception for man to eat of (Gen. -1:29), it was clear to Adam that the prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge was only temporary. [1]

The statement that man would most certainly die in the day he ate of the fruit can be taken in two ways, both probably correct. First, if man disobeyed God and seized the fruit prematurely, he would be sentenced to death. This is indeed what happened, except that an animal was slain as a substitute for Adam’s death, and all Adam suffered on that day was a mitigated form of death: banishment.

Second, if Adam had not sinned, then in time God would have given him permission to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. This would have brought with it a transition from a lower to a higher estate and condition of life. It is pictured for us in the transfiguration of our Lord, and in the nature of His resurrection body. Such a transition would entail and eventuate in a thorough- going transformation of the human person: a form of death. Thus, it is possible to see God’s statement in Genesis 2:17 as both warning and promise.

I do not mean that Adam would have received a transfigured body at the point of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, any more than we receive transfigured/resurrected bodies at the point of our salvation. But, just as our perseverance/preservation in the Kingdom is assured by salvation, so Adam’s eventual transfiguration would have been assured by the Tree of Knowledge. Just as we die to a lesser life and enter a fuller one at the point of salvation, so Adam would have experienced a transition, from immaturity to maturity, from servant to king, at the point of eating the Tree of Knowledge. Just as the most important transition (death) for us is Spiritual conversion, not corporeal death, so the most important transition (“death”) for Adam would have been his eating of the Tree of Knowledge, not his eventual transfiguration into a new corporeal state. Since in the transfigured body they neither marry nor are given in marriage, Adam’s transfiguration would have come after his years of earthly rule and procreation.

_______________________________
[1] See James B. Jordan, “Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis,” in Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian Resistance. Christianity & Civilization No.3 (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1983).
[2] James B. Jordan, The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law, 1989. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com

“What if your gospel-preaching pastor is not as good as one of the great orators of our day? Is it time to sell the house, pack up the family, and change churches? No, I don’t think so. But what should you do?”

Steve Burchett gives us five suggestions, and includes this observation:

“…if your pastor is (honestly) dull, but he preaches the truth faithfully, a little statement I once heard might be helpful for you to remember: ‘The mature worshiper is easily edified.’ When hearing lackluster (even if biblical) preaching, immature worshipers will typically not listen to the message because they wish the messenger was more exciting. Conversely, mature worshipers eagerly receive the truth as it is proclaimed, even if it sounds like the preacher is reading a phone book.”

When Your Preacher Is Not John Piper   HT: Albert Garlando

“Recall the phrase: ‘Poor planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on my part’.  The less mature are always attempting to enroll others in their disquiet, their ‘crisis du jour’. A perceived catastrophe on the part of certain members of the congregation does not constitute a calamity for a well-defined leader.”

“Edwin Friedman, in Generation to Generation defines a leader as a self-defined person with a non-anxious presence… A non-anxious presence does not mean carefree, laid-back, detached, disengaged.  It means an absence of anxiety.”

“As Friedman noted some 15 years ago, most of us are leading chronically anxious emotional dwarfs. In many denominational systems, the church has become one of the hideouts for the immature. Sad. We could be the most powerful, clear, selfless, and confident people on the planet.”

Read more.

(HT: Jon Amos)

Building the Iron Saint

Every plunge brings a tougher skin and a softer heart.

Jesus calls us deeper, so Satan manufactures false depths. There are the deep things of God and the deep things of Satan (Revelation 2:24). Doug Wilson points out that the deep things of God are depths of holiness, not depths of mystical knowledge:

“…the Holy Spirit does indeed search the deep things of God, but He does not do it the way carnal minds think it should be done. The deep things of God are depths of holiness. In the submarine service, we used to have a term for the limit past which a submarine cannot go—that depth was called “crush depth.” And when it comes to God’s holiness, since there is no surface, no empty place above that holiness, every depth is crush depth. And the only way to avoid destruction is to be found in Jesus Christ.

Only the Spirit can sound the depths of Christ, and only Christ can protect us in the Spirit. One of the things He protects us from is the sin of being too clever for our own good, being too clever by half. The Spirit works in us as He did the early Christians, creating in them gladness and simplicity of heart.”

I want to put a different spin on this, the biblical concept of Testing and Maturity, or death and resurrection. The Bible is full of those willing to be refined and those who think they have no need for it; those who willingly put their heads on the stone altar (like Jacob) and those who are willing to slaughter 70 brothers to avoid their own submission (like Abimelech).

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God…”

How does God give us depth? He plunges us into the depths. Joseph was betrayed by his brothers, by his slavemaster’s wife, and by a fellow prisoner. At every step he was plunged deeper into the abyss. Yet, at every step, he obeyed at a deeper level, with a deeper trust in God and a deeper level of holiness. Every plunge increased his crush depth. Finally, deep called unto deep. He was God’s perfected vassal, a metal man, a Tabernacle, like Jesus.

“But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one.”

God’s discipline does bring gladness and simplicity of heart. These are deep things of which we are not naturally capable. It also brings greater glory, the glory of an Adam of dust transfigured into non-corroding precious metals. Every plunge brings plunder for God. Every plunge brings a tougher skin and a softer heart.

From Oswald Chambers:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.

These words mean the breaking of my independence with my own hand and surrendering to the supremacy of the Lord Jesus. No one can do this for me. I must do it myself. God may bring me to the point three hundred and sixty-five times a year, but He cannot put me through it. It means breaking the husk of my individual independence of God, and the emancipation of my personality into oneness with Himself, not for my own ideas, but for absolute loyalty to Jesus. There is no possibility of dispute when once I am there. Very few of us know anything about loyalty to Christ—“For my sake.” It is that which makes the iron saint.

Has that break come? All the rest is pious fraud. The one point to decide is—Will I give up, will I surrender to Jesus Christ, and make no conditions whatever as to how the break comes? I must be broken from my self-realisation, and immediately that point is reached, the reality of the supernatural identification takes place at once, and the witness of the Spirit of God is unmistakable—“I have been crucified with Christ” (RV).

The passion of Christianity is that I deliberately sign away my own rights and become a bond-slave of Jesus Christ. Until I do that, I do not begin to be a saint.

Re The Wrath of Love, Michael Micklow commented:
(Correction – not Michael Shover – Michael got his Michael’s crossed)

“The prophet did not have to remind God, so much as he had to remind himself of the love of God, and to see God’s judgment as the wrath of love.”

What about the dangerous yet successful Mosaic paradigm in Exodus 32:7-14? In this section, the prophet is able to approach, contest and sway God’s wrath (vv. 11-13). In response to Moses’ challenge, the text tells us, “and the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (v. 14)…

… And what was the cornerstone of his defense? — the appeal to memory (v. 13). Moses cites the exodus event, and he further appeals to the covenant established with Abraham.

Exegetically said, human agents when in-line with the memory of Scripture are empowered to approach and challenge the memory of God himself. — Indeed, there may have been another deluge if it weren’t for Moses’ agency, and God may have lamented as he did so poignantly in Genesis 6:6.

It might sound crazy that God needs, or relies, on humans in order to bring about his purposes for the cosmic renewal or eschaton, but a close exegesis of Exodus 32 supports it; furthermore, the overall canonical sweep of Scripture supports such a daring mutual interdependency of God/heaven and humans/earth, founded by Gen. 1:26-28, and supported in Gen. 5:1, Gen 9:6.

Therefore, I am not quite on-board with your above claim, as the relationship between humankind and God, as depicted in the biblical account, is more complex and nuanced.

and then he wrote:

Caveat: or perhaps God was fishing for an answer, testing his prophetic subject in order to see how he would respond to such utter destruction of his Covenant people. But if Moses had not chosen to speak up, then would the fire and brimstone have been unleashed? I think so.

I think this caveat is a good solution to the problem.

Moses and every other “mediator” foreshadowed Christ, standing before God as our advocate. It is not that God has a short memory, but that a Covenant memorial is required, a permanent testimony to the covering that was provided. Christ is enthroned “permanently” at the right hand of the Father, mediating for us until the New Covenant comes to an end and He presents the completed kingdom for final glorification.

God allows crises, as Jordan observes, to bring us to maturity. As God’s sons, we are not called back to the innocence of childhood (or Adam), back to square one, but forward to government. The mature prophet, like Abraham, David, Joshua the High Priest and others, is invited to join God’s council and deliberate with Him on the best course of action. Abraham bargains with God over the cities of the plain. David is given some horrific options to atone for his counting the troops, and he wisely chooses the best of them.

The devil stood at the Father’s right hand accusing the brethren. His job in the garden was to bring Adam to maturity, and despite his rebellion, God used him for just that purpose. And He still does. The Lord just about plays “devil’s advocate” in some instances. [1] He removes His protection from Job. He calls Abraham to kill Isaac. [2] Like Solomon, He calls for a sword to kill the baby. Jesus said plenty of spiky things, and on the Emmaus Road, He pretends as though He is going further. After His ascension, He allows Satan to test the firstfruits church with false doctrine.

What is my reaction in a crisis of faith? I think of Spurgeon’s complaint to God when he was ill, that if he were God, he wouldn’t treat his son this way. And he got better! God allows room for complaint. We see this in Habakkuk, where the prophet complains about the lack of justice, and the Lord is then able to fill him in on the bigger picture.

In the New Covenant, Jesus has given us bread and wine, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Wisdom. When tested, what will be my judgment? Will it be wise, and most importantly, will it be mediatorial? Will I step in between the serpent and Eve, between Israel and the plague? Whatever the test, we now have an Advocate when we fail instead of simply an accuser. We now have a true Teacher instead of an envious angelic pedagogue. His Spirit in us turns stumblingblocks into hurdles. He enlarges our path so our feet do not slip. He teaches us how to make war, and gives us the necks of our enemies. He puts them, and the accuser, under our feet.

In one sense, any dispute with God is sin. He is always right. There is no point debating. At the last judgment, every mouth will be stopped. But in this sense, in this call to maturity, it is an honour to be invited to a “disputatio” with God, a terrible honour: in God’s court, neither the dilemma nor the stakes are ever hypothetical. We are called, robed in white, washed and seated as judges, and our ministry is to stand in the gap (as bread-and-wine people) and avert tragedy through intercession.

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him…  And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” …the Angel of the LORD admonished Joshua, saying,

“Thus says the Lord of armies:
…..‘If you will walk in My ways,
……….and if you will keep My command,
……………Then you shall also judge My house,
……….and likewise have charge of My courts;
…..I will give you places to walk
among these [heavenly elders] who stand here.

(from Zechariah 3).

___________________________________________
[1] The site of Isaac’s offering was where David saw the angel with the sword. He purchased it for the construction of the Temple.
[2] See The Dirty Birds.

“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (NKJV) Luke 7:34

Some good logical thoughts concerning alcohol from Andre Rook’s blog, and comments from me at the end:

Alcohol is synonymous with sin for many. Still for others it is considered an act of Christian love to perpetually abstain from alcohol, to provide a good Christian witness to others. My beef with the latter view (the former being easily dismissed on account of Scripture, and also condemned in the heresy of Manicheism) is that it creates a counterfeit virtue for the Christian.

The erroneous logic is as follows: 1. Alcohol itself is not inherently bad. 2. Perpetual abstinence from “stumbling” consumables is commanded from Scripture for reason of providing a good Christian witness. 3. Therefore, perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not bad; it is in fact a virtue.

My claim is that perpetual abstinence from alcohol is not good, and Scripture by no means condones this false conviction; it is in fact a counterfeit virtue.

Starting from the first premise: alcohol is not inherently bad. The positive of this negative statement is that alcohol is inherently good. Alcohol, being a creation of our Lord, is intrinsically good. Unlike the Manichees who understood evil to be tangible, Jesus states that “it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” (Matt. 15:11). Evil is not tangible; evil is spiritual. This the Bible makes this absolutely clear (Gen. 1:11-12, Matt. 15:11, Romans 14:14, 1 Tim. 4:3).

The second premise is where things have gotten hairy in many modern churches; this is where my disagreement lies. In Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.’s book, “God Gave Wine,” he devotes an entire chapter to the exegesis of Romans 14. In that chapter, Paul is speaking to the Romans about the doctrine of Christian liberty. There were a few things that stuck out to me in this chapter. One such point is the term “stumbling block” that many Christians like to throw around. What does this cryptic saying mean? What constitutes as a “stumbling block?” Gentry defines the Greek word used here: proskomma. As it turns out, this Greek word does not simply mean something that causes someone to feel uncomfortable or irritated. The meaning is much stronger than that. Proskomma in the Greek refers to something that causes someone to fall into sin against God. Notice the word “cause.” If the effect of my cause is rebellion against the Lord, then I should not do what is in question. On how many occasions is moderate alcohol consumption a cause for sin? Let us answer the question with care, for our Savior Himself consumed alcohol in public, around the society’s lowest, most likely some of which may have been tempted with the sin of drunkenness.

The fact is that Christ did not cause anyone to sin. “Cause” implies intent. If it is my intent to cause someone to fall into sin, then I have sinned; I am responsible. We cannot cause someone to sin if it is not our intent to do so. If our intent is not to make others sin and simply enjoy God’s goodness and providence, then the responsibility literally does not lie with us for the sin they may commit as the result of our lawful activity. We cannot unknowingly cause someone to sin, according to the very nature and definition of the word proskomma.

So how, then, should we approach alcohol? In the same way we approach everything else. With sobriety of mind and spirit, and with praise for our Lord on our lips. He is good, and all that he has created is good. Alcohol abstention is, in fact, nothing more than a counterfeit virtue, a “virtue” that Christ Himself did not practice.

It is dangerous business indeed to try and be holier than Christ; that was the Pharisee’s fatal game. Let us give thanks to our Maker for the good things he has given to us to enjoy; let us praise Him by enjoying alcohol as He meant for it to be enjoyed. Cheers!

As C. S. Lewis has pointed out to us, Satan only has the materials that God created to tempt us with. Sin is an inappropriate use of good things—including other people. Everything has its place, and many things can be quite deadly if they are out of place. Internal bleeding or a punctured bowel are perfect examples. Greasy fried chicken is a blessing in moderation. Fried chicken grease from kids’ fingers on a new leather lounge is not. Farming, mining, fishing and foresting are good. All of these in the extreme are bad. In all cases, we are called to use the created order justly, in love, and with wisdom.

Just as bread is a symbol of priestly obedience (just follows the baking rules), wine is a symbol of wisdom. It is for someone who knows the rules and doesn’t need them enforced. It is self-government.

In the toolbox of Creation, alcohol is a powersaw. [1] To be used wisely, not to be toyed with. As a picture of the Covenant cup, it brings both blessings and curses depending upon obedience. We experience the “shalom” of the kingdom, ruling over our enemies as Solomon, or we stagger and fall prey to those same enemies, as the kings eventually did. Jesus drank wine as a king, and He also drank the cup of Covenant curses at the Father’s hand.

The view on alcohol at the church we attend is that it is inherently bad. I can’t argue with the tragedies it has caused in many lives and families, experienced firsthand by many friends and acquaintances. For sure, those who cannot handle it should abstain—this was the sin of Adam. [2] But is prohibition a wise decree—or is it a refusal to accept the role of government of the kingdom Christ has purchased and delegated to us? Even after his failure, the Lord called Adam to judge rightly.

Reaching a maturity in judgment is always messy. [3] So a prohibition of alcohol is the same as a ban on farming, mining, fishing and foresting. It is a refusal to grow up and enter into glory, and to deal with the risks this always involves. This was the sin of the Pharisees, who preferred the security of legal minutiae to the living, flexible, mature wisdom of one who was greater than Solomon. [4]

________________________________________
[1] See Boisterous with Wine, Deconstituted Ingredients, and Power Tools.
[2] See Touch Not, Taste Not, Handle Not.
[3] See A Priesthood of All Believers Can be Messy – 1.
[3] See the lengthy quote from James B. Jordan’s From Bread to Wine in May His Days Be Few.

The Pharisees’ call for miracles from Jesus was a sign of immaturity. As the story of the patriarchs demonstrates, the growing maturity of the people of God is illustrated in less of a need for proofs. The Word is enough. Miracles are occurring around the world in places where the gospel is new and faith needs assurance. In the West, genuine miracles of this nature seldom occur. Is it due to a lack of faith or a call to greater faith? We have had the Scriptures forever, and the childish desire for (and manufacturing of) miracles, betrays a reversion to childhood.

Abraham was the first patriarch, but both Jacob and Joseph did greater deeds. Jordan observes that neither Abraham nor Jacob could have conquered Egypt the way Joseph did.

Abraham founds the new Garden, planting oak trees (Father). Jacob’s trials concern relatives and brothers (Land – Son). Joseph is plunged into the Gentile Sea, the World. Joseph was most likely the first Spirit-filled man.

“…altars and sacrifices play a large role in the Abraham narrative (Genesis 11:27–25:11), little role in the story of Jacob (25:12–37:1), and no role in the history of Joseph (37:2–50:26). We now observe that in the story of Abraham, God frequently appears to Abraham (12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:1-33; 22:1-19), while God only appears four times to Jacob in the Jacob story (28:10-17; 31:10-13; 32:24-30; 35:10-13), and once later on in the Joseph story (46:1-4). The Abraham narrative reads like an extended life-long dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh, and indeed, there are several actual dialogues between the two. In the Jacob narrative there are no dialogues, and God appears only at three/four crisis points. God does not personally appear at all in the Joseph story. If there is something to be learned from this fact is it this: As we mature, God chooses to recede further into the background of our lives, and leads us by means of His Spirit. This is an aspect of how He brings us to maturity.” [1]

Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed. Unlike Adam, and like Joseph, we become content to obey the Covenant Word and work faithfully—unsupervised. Even in the valley of the shadow of death, we remember what direction we were facing in and we persevere.

You should still expect miracles, but the Word becomes enough as you grow to maturity. You become Word incarnate so that the “hidden God” is not hidden at all. Like Joseph, you are the altar and the sign.

________________________________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, Crisis Time: Patriarchal Prologue, Part 1, BIBLICAL HORIZONS, No. 109.

or Being a Truly Impure Thinker

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15

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

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

Join now for a year for $15!

_____________________________________
[1] Available from www.wordmp3.com
[2] Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, “Farewell to Descartes” in I Am an Impure Thinker [PDF]
[3] See Marriage as a Promise of Wine.
[4] See Eat Local and Die.
[5]  See Touch Not, Taste Not, Handle Not.
[6] See Knowledge and Wisdom.