What the Order of Melchizedek Means For Baptism

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and all His works are chiastic. Because of this, a solid understanding of any Covenant requires us to identify its “bookends.” According to Hebrews, the Melchizedekian bookends are crucial for a comprehension of the limitations of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Firstly, the description of Melchizedek itself has a Covenantal shape, which should help us to understand its content and its flow:

As usual, the internal logic of the content and order of the statements is made plain with a Covenant-literary analysis. In describing this mysterious priest-king of Jerusalem, the author not only recapitulates the first seven books of the Bible, he recapitulates the entire history of the Abrahamic Covenant.

• “Most High God” is a Gentile name for Yahweh, alluding to the priesthood of all nations which existed before the Aaronic priesthood.
• The slaughter of kings and the blessing of “dining with God” as a prophet was fulfilled in the destruction of Egypt and the ascension of Israel’s elders in Exodus 24. In both cases, the tyranny of opportunistic and vengeful “Cains” was judged that the ministry of atonement might be re-established.
• PRIESTHOOD: Abraham’s tithe obviously alludes to the establishment of the Levitical Order, whose members represented the Firstfruits of the Land.
• KINGDOM: As the righteous king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek prefigured the priestly kingdom of David, with its expanded priesthood and permanent house. The reference to the translation of his name at this point might be the fact that God’s chosen man often receives a new name “in the fire” of the Covenant Ethics (beginning with Adam as “Ish.”) For David, it was the establishment of a house for God’s own name.
• PROPHECY: Maturity concerns either war or peace, plagues or plunder, depending on the obedience of the kings. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus blesses the peacemakers at this point. In Israel’s history, of course, the failure of Solomon (“Shelomoh”, derived from shalom) to keep the Mosaic laws for Israel’s kings¹See Guns, Girls and Gold, led to an Imperial Era under Gentile kings.
• Just as circumcision singled out a childless “Father” to be the genealogical source of the Messiah, so baptism began the ministry of a fatherless Son.

The pattern begins with the original Melchizedek and ends with his fulfilment in Christ. It seems to me that the confusion concerning the use of Melchizedek in Hebrews originates from a two-fold failure:

a) A failure to understand the Noahic priesthood as an order of priest-kings like Noah. The union of priesthood and kingdom, Church and State, is pictured in the offering of both bread and wine. Once united, they result in the ministry of the Prophet, the one who not only listens to God, and acts for God, but also speaks for God. The division of humanity into Jew and Gentile was the reason the Aaronic priests never drank wine in God’s presence.²See “The Forbidden Feast” in God’s Kitchen: Theology You Can Eat & Drink. The Lord’s Supper pictured the imminent end of the Aaronic order.

b) They fail to realise that the lack of detail in many descriptions of Old Testament characters is part of the Spirit’s work in giving us archetypes³See the introduction to James Jordan’s Judges commentary. which would later be fulfilled. The name of Manoah’s wife is never revealed to us, not because she was not worthy to be named, but in fact because she was worthy to typify “the Woman” who would give birth to the miraculous Son.

From Adam, we can trace the Messianic genealogy to Abraham. But the purpose of the writer of Hebrews is to demonstrate to his Jewish Christian audience that genealogy was irrelevant to priesthood in the undivided world. Being without genealogy is symbolic of a New Creation, referring to Adam as the “son of God” (Luke 3:38). When the entire Physical world was wiped out, Noah became a man “without genealogy.” The entire previous civilisation had failed, and he was a new beginning. The author of Hebrews does not mention either Adam or Noah because the contrast he desires is only obvious in Abraham’s submission to an uncircumcised priest-king.

This brings us once again⁴See Children of Heaven. to the baptism of Jesus. No one disputes that the appearance of the dove was to symbolise a new Creation, alluding to the “fluttering” or “brooding” of the Spirit upon the waters in Genesis 1, and the dove sent out upon the flood waters by Noah. What I want to highlight here is the subtle supersession of genealogy at this event. Not only is Jesus’ true father revealed as the Father in heaven, He is chosen from a wide field of circumcised, repentant sons of Abraham. At this point, circumcision became entirely redundant. Natural pedigree, or lack of it, is made redundant when one responds to the Gospel and receives the Spirit of Christ. This is why, in Christ, all physical and social advantages or disadvantages become utterly meaningless. The standard is an Ethical/Spiritual transformation, an entirely new life.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

This means that a baptism which is not only given to infants because they are part of a particular social group or family, but purports to confer either “advantages” of grace, or even “salvation” due to natural pedigree is a monstrosity. Paedobaptism mutates baptism into the very thing it supersedes: a new circumcision, a sign which has to do with genealogy, with tribe. It takes the New Covenant and makes it Abrahamic, Aaronic. Consequently, the next verse in Galatians is misunderstood:

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:29)

Paul says that those in Christ are Abraham’s heirs, but in the context of the preceding verse he cannot be referring to physical offspring. Why would the Lord dismantle the Jew-Gentile divide only to establish something that is almost exactly the same? The answer is found in Jesus’ baptism. He is speaking of the sons of heaven, not the sons of earth, the Order of Melchizedek, not the “genealogical” line of Abraham.

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did…” (John 8:39)

Paedobaptists claim that their baptism is about faith rather than genealogy, but in truth it is an unworkable hybrid of the two. This is why they fight amongst themselves so much. If their baptism is genealogical, then infants should not receive Communion, because the Table is clearly about faith. If their baptism is about faith, then their infants must somehow be miraculously “regenerate” from the womb. The myopia (or stubbornness) on both sides is breathtaking, because the solution is so simple. Those who claim that “Covenant membership” is objective show a surprising lack of objectivity when it comes to the Scriptures concerning baptism. ⁵I do believe “New Covenant membership” is objective, but this is because everyone on the planet is a member of this Covenant, and called to repent and believe. The clear teaching of the Bible concerning the qualifications for baptism are ignored, and many baptism texts are twisted to fit their agenda.

Marcionism — ignoring the Old Testament — is a wrong turn, because we can only understand the New Testament through studying the Old. But this “objective” baptism requires a kind of reverse Marcionism, where the New Covenant realities are “carnalised” and rendered “Abrahamic.” Almost all of the supposed “proof texts” for paedobaptism are Abrahamic, including the ones in the New Testament. But the Order of Melchizedek is a priesthood whose ordination celebrates the irrelevance of genealogy.⁶See An Atheist ‘Gets’ Baptism. Just ask a Jew or a Roman Catholic whose grown child has committed the “unforgivable sin” of getting baptised by immersion. Many such converts are disowned, because their circumcision or baptism is hereditary. The unwillingness of many Christians to submit to biblical baptism is likely due to a similar fear. If one sprinkled Presbyterian requested to be immersed in a congregation of sprinklers, this act immediately renders all their “baptisms” to be meaningless, totally discredited. Suddenly, they are revealed to be what they are: baby dedications. This is because such a baptism is an act which publicly states an allegiance to heaven rather than earth, to God rather than men. If you question a credobaptism, you question Christ. If you question a paedobaptism, you merely question some earthly guardians (regardless of the claims of efficacy by many paedobaptists).

Baptism is about ethical maturity, about “outgrowing” your parents. This is why circumcision and baptism sit where they do (typologically) in the passage above. Circumcision is an objective application of the Law. Baptism, however, speaks of internal Law. It is about stepping off the coat tails of your parents and answering to God and His Church for yourself. It is about the beginning of ministry, graduating from being limited to “priestly” bread to drinking wine in God’s presence as a king, that one might go and serve as a prophet.⁷Wine is not for children. Paedocommunion puts the mental in sacramentalism! Sadly, many of my paedobaptist friends think the cries of their infants are somehow terrifying to the devil and to the nations, as though the birth of a child is as miraculous as Christ emerging from the grave. This is ludicrous. Perhaps if they applied their teaching on the interpretation of tongues to these infant cries they might stop being so silly. Babies are not prophets. Giving the wine of the Sanctuary to infants is to claim that circumcision of heart is not necessary to be a son (representative) of God, and this particular claim originated in the mouth of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

As a New Covenant “child of God,” the Christian is “without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” The second birth makes the first birth quite meaningless. To celebrate a first birth with baptism is like having wedding cake at a circumcision (as Peter Leithart evidently does). A paedobaptism which requires not only parents but “God-parents” is the exact opposite of Jesus’ baptism. It is a blatantly obvious distortion of everything which Jesus’ baptism stood for. Paedobaptist friends have told me that paedobaptism is not purely genealogical, and neither was circumcision, to which I reply that it was genealogical/tribal, the exact opposite of the New Covenant, which is designed not to replace but to transcend all  such human boundaries. If parental/tribal guardians must be present, then I’m afraid the heavenly Father has nothing to do with it. If it has four legs, a tail, and barks like a dog, it is not a wild stallion.

I am surprised the Reformers did not reject the practice. I guess they were culture-bound by their idea of Christendom, resulting in a “civic” sprinkling as part of a rite of citizenship, but modern paedobaptists are not bound by such ideas (and ought not to hanker after them!). In any case, we are to obey God rather than men, the Bible rather than the Reformers. And a good dose of objective, logical thinking would not go astray, either.

To insist on paedobaptism, or to be wrong more consistently by insisting on paedosacraments (Abraham ate the bread and drank the wine on behalf of those in his loins), is to misunderstand both why circumcision was instituted (a fundamentally Social order) and why it was ended (replaced by a fundamentally Ethical order). In baptism, an individual becomes a new Creation, and I will discuss what this means in the next post.

Why was the unique sacrificial rite in Genesis 15 required, and what did it signify? Was it simply a self-maledictory oath on the Lord’s behalf, or was there something deeper going on?

The Oath

The theory that the Lord was taking the curse upon Himself is based on Hebrews 6:13-14:

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.”

Peter Golding writes:

A self-maledictory oath is the most likely explanation of the incident recorded in Genesis 15 where, at God’s instigation, Abraham takes a heifer, a she-goat and a ram and divides them in the midst, laying each piece one against another. The lamp of fire which passed between the pieces belongs to the same order as the burning bush (Exod 13:21) and the pillar of ire (13:21). It is a symbol of the presence of God, represented here as “cutting a covenant” with Abraham–in other words, God invoking upon himself the covenant curses if his promises should fail.¹Peter Golding, Covenant Theology, 72.

This common explanation does highlight the truth that the fulfilment of the promises rested upon the faithfulness of God rather than Israel, the God who would keep raising Israel from the dead, by grace alone, until they were all fulfilled (Zechariah 4:6). It also understands that the curse was borne by Yahweh Himself in Christ. Yahweh took the Oath and Yahweh would Himself bear its Sanctions. However, it neglects to explain the requirement for animal sacrifices at this point, which are very specific, looking backwards to Noah and forwards to Leviticus. The curse upon sin was always borne by blameless animal substitutes after the sin, but what was the sin in this instance? Why were animal sacrifices required now?

The Ascension

James Jordan explains that the answer is not found in the later (historically-speaking) Covenant oaths but in events found earlier in Genesis. The reason for the animals slain in the Land is discovered in the animals slain in the Garden.

When Adam sinned he was sentenced to die. God killed an animal to provide covering for him, but still he had to leave the Garden. A boundary was set around the Garden that he might not cross on pain of death, for cherubim with flaming sword that turned in all directions were set at the eastern gate of the Garden to guard it. For Adam to get back into the Garden, he would have to ascend past the barrier, through sword and fire. Only then could he serve as God’s palace-servant again. In Leviticus 1, the animal will pass through sword and fire, bringing the adam back into a symbolic Garden.

From this every Israelite knew that it was God and not any adam who would kill the “animal” to provide covering. When the Israelite slaughtered his Nearbringing, he knew that he was only acting a role designed to affirm his faith in what God would someday do.

Two events in the life of Abraham must also be remembered. When God made the covenant with Abram in Genesis 15, five animals were divided (the same five that are brought near in Leviticus; contrast Noah’s offering of all “clean” animals), and God’s smoky presence passed between the parts of the animals. God said that this event linked Abram to the land, from which he had been estranged (the famine in Genesis 12, the weakness of the land in Genesis 13, the wars all over the land in Genesis 14), though that linkage would not take hold for several generations to come. Thus, the two parts of the animals represented Abram and the land. Abram and the land were dead to each other, rent asunder. But now God’s presence would knit them together. Thus, when God’s glory passes between the parts of the animals, it signifies putting them back together again in a new way. In Leviticus 1, putting the sectioned parts of the animal into the Communion Site (traditionally “altar”) signifies the same thing: resurrection, reunification with God and the world, and glorification.²James B. Jordan, Introduction to the Ascensions, Biblical Horizons 143.

The Mediators

While this is extremely helpful, I think it still fails to explain the need for the sacrifices. Much more needs to be made of the link between the barrenness of Sarai and the barrenness of Canaan as expressions of the curses in Genesis 3. Fruitfulness of the land and the womb are the results of faithfulness to God. But Abraham was not unfaithful. Adam’s sin eventually led to the destruction of “all flesh” in a global flood. What was being established in Abraham and Sarah was a microcosmic model of the world, a Social Land surrounded by a Social Sea. As Jordan describes above, Abraham’s estrangement from Canaan follows a familiar threefold pattern, but it is expressed in local events rather than global ones:

In these three trials, Abraham is proven as a priest, a king and a prophet, dealing faithfully and wisely in all three domains. ³Abraham’s behaviour concerning Sarai in Egypt is misinterpreted as a faithless deception, rather than outcrafting the serpent. See James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints, for more discussion. As a result, he is made a father in God’s image, that the seed promised to Adam and Eve might be preserved, and also that his offspring might serve as mediators for the nations even before that seed should arrive to spare the world another Physical annihilation. The Abrahamic Covenant is the heavenly rainbow expressed upon the earth, a local “earth” that would suffer on behalf of all the earth.⁴For more discussion, see Cosmic Language.

Thus, when the Lord tells Abraham that the sins of the Amorites are not yet fully grown, not yet ripe for judgment, we might understand this in regard to all the surrounding nations. The first “Social flood” which Canaan would suffer was the invasion of the tribes of Jacob, four centuries in the future. It is my belief that the animals did not represent a divide between Abraham and the Land, but a divide between Abraham and the nations. These sacrifices were Abraham’s mediation on behalf of those living in Canaan, to whom he had preached the Gospel, proclaiming the name of the Lord (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 26:25; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32). This is because Genesis 15 not only follows the fivefold Covenant pattern, recapitulating the Creation week, it also recapitulates the history of the world from Adam to Noah:

Now, it must be said here that Israel’s failure to enter the Land ruined the pattern, and a new “washing” was required in the Jordan. But the correspondences do explain the need for substitutionary sacrifices. Ascension also corresponds to Leviticus (the Levites were a kind of Firstfruits who possessed no “Day 3″ Land, since they were its holy “fruits”).

The House

This brings us to an explanation of the five clean animals required by God. They prefigure the Tabernacle, which was itself a microcosmic house that served as a substitute for the sins of Israel and the nations. As the Tabernacle was cruciform, I believe these animals were laid out in a cruciform pattern, but with a very significant deficiency.

Abram had been in the Land for three years, so the animals were three years old, a kind of Firstfruits, flesh and blood as bread and wine. This represents a divided week, the failure of Adam at the center of the sevenfold Testing process, where he seized kingdom without prior priestly submission to God. Thus, these animals represent every fundamental element of the Tabernacle except for the Lampstand, the symbol of God’s domain over Israel, which would serve to enlighten the Gentiles of His kingdom over all nations. The reason it is missing here is that in Abram, Adam’s race was being divided into priests and kings, Jew from Gentile, bread from wine, that the sin of intermarriage might not eliminate a faithful representation of God’s mercy expressed in animal sacrifices, preserving the promise of the Messiah. Thus, this “cutting in half” is not only found in each animal, but in the entire bloody architecture. This “divided man” was the reason the Aaronic priests were bloodied and oiled only on their right ear, thumb and big toe. And it is the reason that wine was never consumed by men in God’s presence until Christ came to reinstitute a better “order of Melchizedek.” On the cross, He would make of the two halves “one new Adam,” bloodied and oiled on both sides to tear down the wall of circumcision and reunite the halves in a priesthood of all nations. So the animals do not represent Abraham and the Land, but prefigure the worship to be established in the priesthood of Aaron.

A heifer three years old

The heifer I have positioned in the place of the Bronze Altar, since it corresponds to the face of the Ox. The heifer represents the earth, in this case, the actual four-cornered Land with its horns representing the witness of blood, faithful worship which would keep “the Sea” at bay. In this case, the animal is female, presumably because the word “eretz” (Land) is feminine, the Creational “womb” so to speak. A heifer is a cow that has not borne a calf, or has borne only one calf. The sacrifice on this Altar is Adamic, however.

A female goat three years old

The female goat represents the Altar of Incense. This also had four horns, but they were the prophetic winds of heaven. The blood from the Bronze “Adamic” Altar of death was daubed on this fragrant “Evian” Altar of resurrection, its savour speaking of the burial spices on the raised body in place of the stink of death. We see the bloody Bronze Altar and the fragrant Incense Altar in Esau and Jacob, outside and inside the tent, with a reference to goat skin thrown in for good measure as Jacob presents himself before the “throne” of his father.

A ram three years old

The ram is the Firstfruits of the Firstfruits (just as the Levites gave a tenth to God of the tenth of Israel). This represents the Table of Showbread, which corresponds to Firstfruits in the Tabernacle pattern. Isaac was the firstfruits of the barren womb of Sarah. Just as the firstfruits of the Land were lifted up, so the firstfruits of the womb were lifted up on Mount Moriah, but substituted with a ram.

A turtledove and a young pigeon

The inclusion of black birds and white birds should remind us of the ark of Noah, physical representations of judgment/assessment, dividing between light and darkness over the waters. These would be represented in the Urim and Thummim in the ephod of the High Priest.⁶See “Return of the Raven” in Sweet Counsel. Yet, here the birds are multiplied. There is more than one black bird, representing the general curse of death, and there are two white birds, representing the Covenant blessing upon the faithful who seek covering under the shed blood. The dove and the pigeon were not cut in half, but instead their necks were broken. They represent the “Head” of this cruciform architecture, and the Head cannot be divided, or crushed, only temporarily separated from the Body. The same thing is observed in Jesus’ graveclothes (John 20:7). Since the dove is the wild animal and the pigeon its domesticated cousin, I believe these represent Land and World, the Spirit’s work in both Jew and Gentile, one with the Law and one without (Romans 3). The “sign of Jonah” (Jonah means dove) is the death of Israel through baptism/submersion for the sake of the nations, the Land for the Sea.

The order of the list of these animals expresses a priestly ascension. It works from the earth/Adam, to Eve, to Eve’s firstborn, to the promise of a combined Jew-Gentile priesthood in heaven, a reinstitution of a “Melchizedekian” or Noahic order in heaven through a grafting process, the cultivated field given new longevity through the grafting in of the wild branches (as we observe in the inclusion of Rahab, Ruth, etc.)

The serpent and the tree

So, what of the missing Lampstand? Moses sees it in the wilderness, and hears the words of Yahweh. In the structure of Genesis 15, that role is usurped by the serpentine Pharaoh of Egypt, representing lawlessness, a wisdom which is not of God. It is no accident that the Lord of the burning bush gives Moses three “serpentine” signs.⁷See Sweet Counsel, 147.

In the greater picture, the Lampstand is the Day of Pentecost, the coming of true kingdom. The animals represent Adam, laid out as a lifeless, empty body awaiting breath from heaven. The five animals form the house, and the fire, in this case a smoking fire pot (the “clouds” or hosts of Israel’s armies) and a blazing torch (the fiery “head” or Captain, Joshua/Jesus) come to fill it. The Head and Body are burnt separately but united by fire in the Ascension offering in Leviticus 1, which recapitulates the Creation Week. Moreover, this new Israel was circumcised outside Jericho before cutting off “all flesh” in that city as a firstfruits to God. If you know your matrix icons, you might notice that the flaming sword icon is positioned at the Laver, not only the site of circumcision but also the spring of Eden, the womb and the Land. In all cultures except the most degenerate, this is the part of the human body which is covered. The architecture of Eden is represented in our bodies as earthly Tabernacles.

The Inheritance

This Covenant with Abraham was entirely fulfilled.

Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And theLord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

Since this was, in my thinking, a Covenant which sheltered the Canaanites temporarily, they were accountable to God when Israel returned with Joshua. There are no genocides in the Bible. There are only Covenant Oaths and the resulting Sanctions. Sacrificial blood was offered at the Oath, and if that substitutionary blood was “trampled underfoot,” the human blood would be shed. This is exactly the process we see from the death of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem, the tearing of the Temple veil to the end of Judaism in AD70, and it is the context of Hebrews 10:29.

So, the conquest of Canaan fulfilled the symbolic sequence in Genesis 15. Yet the Lord works in fractals. He keeps moving the goal posts, just as He did with Adam and Abraham, from the Garden, to the Land, to the World. The Triune pattern is measured out in every part of the Scriptures, including sacred architecture. But there is one facet of Israel’s inheriting the Land which has been overlooked as far as I know, and once again it must be understood in the context of the Noahic priesthood.

Because Ham attempted to steal an inheritance from Noah,⁸See Out of His Belly. his son Canaan would serve Shem as a slave. Yet this is not what occurred during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt after the death of Joseph. Shem was in slavery “in the Land of Ham.” (Egypt is referred to as “the land of Ham” in Psalms 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106: 22; 1 Chron. 4:40.) Not only this, but the divide between priests and kings, first expressed in Cain’s hatred for Abel, is present here in the fact that the Egyptians despised shepherds, requiring the Hebrews to dwell on their own (Genesis 46:34). This fulfills the distance between the serpent and ram in the Abrahamic “Tabernacle.”

While the “seed,” the house of Jacob, was “dying” in Egypt that it might be multiplied as a great harvest, the oak trees planted and wells dug in Canaan by the patriarchs were also bearing fruit, along with the houses and vineyards of the Canaanites. The cursed womb had born a nation in the “grave,” while the cursed Land now promised an abundance (Numbers 13:24). Shem would inherit everything from Ham, but only through a process of death and resurrection. Shem had to die in the Land of Ham (the father) and be resurrected to inherit the Land of Canaan (the son).

Circumcision was tied to the Abrahamic promises concerning the Land and the womb. These ended at the baptism of Christ, the first sign of the dove, a Noahic Jew-Gentile immersion which cut off Canaan forever, and promised instead a heavenly country, a blessing for all nations. But then, Abraham knew that all along (Hebrews 11:16). The rainbow was back in the heavens.

“Show Us the Father And We Will Be Satisfied” (John 14:8)

This is the third cycle within the “Numbers” or Ethics section of Galatians. Paul is contrasting the external Ethics of the Law (requiring the perfect obedience of Man) with the internal Ethics of the Spirit (resulting from trust in the perfect obedience of Christ). But there is something deeper here which, it seems to me, is often overlooked.

The first thing to note is that, unless we take into account the “Covenant literary” structure of Paul’s writing, we are not going to entirely understand the reason for everything he includes in his argument. This is not simply a bunch of facts presented to the Galatians to set them straight, nor even a bunch of facts presented in a linear, set-by-step argument. Every cycle is truth arranged in the same shape as the very process by which God justifies the ungodly, and it is occurring at multiple levels. To pull a verse out of this “Covenant process” and use it as a proof text is like attempting to pull the three eggs out of the cake you baked.
This post has been refined by fire and included in a new book, The Shape of Galatians.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

What is the referent of “body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 11:29?

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Is it the members of the Church, as Doug Wilson supposes?

A few years ago, when one of my grandsons first came to the table (he was one year old), he was beside himself. His parents had taught him a basic catechism with signs because he could not really talk. He answered the question “Are you baptized?” by patting his own head. I was administering the Supper, and he was sitting in the front row with his parents and grandmother. When he got his bread, he held it up to show me. Now all this could be dismissed simply as a grandkid doing a cute thing, not really understanding it. But he also turned and pattern his mother’s head and his grandmother’s head. We are all baptized. He was discerning the body. To the extent he understood the Supper, he was discerning the body. To the extent that he did not understand the Supper (as the rest of us do not either), he was learning, just as we are. [1]

Why do paedobaptists always play the “cute” card? Is it not obvious that the corollary to “We are all baptized” is that Christianity is tribal and/or hereditary? That discussion is for another day. I just thought this was a great quote to illustrate what is often understood by this verse. But then what is the meaning of the verse? Its Covenant structure might shed some light on it.

It should be clear from this structure that the Communion table, a place of the kind of self-examination which leads to repentance and faith, is not for infants. It is not intended for the training up of children, except by observation. The “bread” they require first is the hearing of the Gospel. But the main point here is that the context of “discerning the body” is not about figuring out who is in and who is out.

The Lord’s supper is a combination of Israel’s Levitical priesthood eating the sacrifices before God, and Israel vowing to keep the conditions of the Covenant. Before the Mosaic Covenant, all sacrifices were whole burnt offerings. God ate the lot, as a consuming fire. The Noahic priests did not eat with God. To do so required a greater ceremonial cleanliness, a blameless people with “Levitically spotless skin,” as living sacrifices.

Moreover, Israel’s priests only ate before God, they never drank with Him. Between the first Melchizedek bringing bread and wine to Abraham (to vindicate him as a priest-king) and the last Melchizedek bringing bread and wine to Abraham’s children (the disciples), the wine was always to be tipped out as an offering. [2] The symbolism of the cup is tied to the jealous inspection of the bride in Numbers 5. In the big picture, the true priest-king was Christ, the only one who could rightly drink wine before God as a qualified Adam, the true Son of God.

So the distinction here, the “discernment” of the body is not the gathered saints but the act of judging rightly between sacred food and common food, between the house of God and the homes we live in, between the priestly table and the kingly table. When we eat at home, our food is not the body of Christ, and our wine is not the blood of the New Covenant. This is only the case when the saints gather together for self-examination, worship and Covenant renewal.

He whose god is his belly does not discern the Table as the flesh and blood of Christ but merely as food and drink. His outflow is not sacrificial blood and a river of living water but the filth of the bowels of King Eglon of Sodom. Those who discern what the bread and the wine actually are in God’s eyes will rightly discern themselves. Those who see  the Son of God on the Table, judging Jesus as righteous and themselves as unrighteous will, by eating and drinking, humble themselves and exalt the Saviour. His pure words are intended for our hearts, not our bellies (Mark 7:19). For those who love this world, Jesus’ pure words are Ehud’s left-handed (priestly) blade.

For Israel, this discernment was related to the difference between Passover and Tabernacles. At Passover, Israel was set apart for purification. At Booths/Tabernacles, a purified Israel was called to minister to, to “feed” the other nations. [3] For the Christian, this is the difference between the Lord’s table and the love feast. We examine ourselves, eat with God, and will then eat with the unconverted with the right heart, ministering out of God’s abundance.

So much for the basic argument. As always, the identification of the Covenant structure gives us even more information.

It is helpful to note that divisions in the assembly are often instigated by God for the purpose of purifying the church, as painful as this may be. It is not always simple, but in this case, gluttony exposed the swine.

At the Levitical step, we have saints acting like the sons of Eli, who treated the house of the Lord as if it were their own house, and the food of God as their own food. They exalted themselves instead of humbling themselves as God’s butlers, His faithful servants.

At the centre of the passage, Jesus is under the curse of the Law, drinking the cup in the place of the adulterous Bride. Even now He was covering their disobedience through His own death, just as He was still covering the sin of the Jewish leaders who were yet celebrating Passover and building the Temple in kingly (“Cainite”) disobedience to the Gospel.

The “Sanctions” part of the passage reinforces the idea that the Lord’s Supper is for the regular public renewal of the public profession of faith made by each saint at his or her baptism. Baptism puts the saint into the resurrection body, as one who has been slain by the Gospel and now possesses new life by the Spirit. The Table is the place of self-discipline for God’s knights, who judge themselves that they may not be judged, something which is insane to expect from a one-year-old unless one has an erroneous tradition to protect.

Notice that those who will not discipline themselves are disciplined by the Lord. This is exactly what we see in the letters to the seven churches in Asia, as Jesus “passes over” them on His way to destroy Pharaoh/Herod. He comes to tend His garden, the children of God (spiritual, not physical children), to feed them with righteousness and holiness. Those whom He finally removes (as He threatens to do in Revelation 2 and 3), are judged that the church might be preserved from being entirely “snuffed out.”

The final section, like the first, mentions the gathering (Booths). The Table is the place where the saints sit as elohim, heavenly rulers, those who are purified and are now fit to sit enthroned with Christ in heavenly places as His elders, His court, His advisors, and judge the wicked and advocate for the helpless by their prayers. The Lord’s Table is for the maintenance of the two-edged sword of the Gospel in our lives. It is a place of death and life, where we eat and drink Jesus, the priest-king, and then become life-giving food for the world.

____________________________________________
[1] Doug Wilson, in his foreword for The Case for Covenant Communion, edited by Gregg Strawbridge.
[2] See “The Forbidden Feast” in God’s Kitchen for more discussion and a diagram.
[3] See “Eat Local and Die” in God’s Kitchen for more discussion.

ART: The Death of Eglon via Sarah Louise 

“What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of ‘merits,’ but rather His maturity.”

James B. Jordan writes:

The problem with the “covenant of works” notion lies in the fact that it is linked up with merit theology. There is no merit theology in the Bible. Merit theology is a hangover of medieval Roman Catholicism.

The problem with much “active and passive” talk is that it is part of the same erroneous scheme: Jesus’ “active obedience” earned merits that are then given to me, merits that Adam was supposed to earn. Such “merits” are some kind of “works,” and though this is not said, what is implied are something like Herculean labors, something beyond merely remaining faithful.

But that’s not what happened. Jesus simply remained faithful. He did not do any heroic works — there is no heroism in the gospel anywhere; only faithfulness. In a large sense, all of Jesus’ “work” was “passive.” He did not “go beyond” mere faithful obedience to the Law. But as a result of doing just that and no more, He matured into full adulthood. Notice that He was proclaimed king when He arrived at Jerusalem, was tried as a king, was robed as a king, and was crucified as a king. Contrary to Presbyterian theology, Jesus did not die primarily as a priest but as Melchizedek, as a king. That is, as an adult.

Or, better, as the One who was on the brink of becoming king, as the anointed Prince. Passing through death on the tree and then being resurrected in a transfigured state, Jesus became fully King and Adult.

Jesus resisted Satan in the wilderness. That’s what Adam failed to do. From that point on, for three plus years, He matured in faith, beyond the point where Adam failed. He matured to the point of being ready for adult responsibilities. Through his death, he became fully mature and was given dominion over ALL nations, over the wider world into which Adam had been prematurely cast.

That is the point of Galatians 3-4. Formerly we were children, but now in union with Jesus Christ we have become adults. What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of “merits,” but rather His maturity.

A fuller discussion of this theme of maturation can be found in James B. Jordan, From Bread to Wine: Toward a More Biblical Liturgical Theology, available for $15.00 from Biblical Horizons: www.biblicalhorizons.com

See also: Dying He Shall Die

ART: In the Garden of Eden, Kathryn Brimblecombe-Fox

“For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of [Adam] be three days and three nights in the heart of the [Land].”
(Matthew 12:40)

There was some to and fro recently between Doug Wilson and Andrew Perriman on the use of Greek terms for the grave and hell used by the New Testament writers. [1] Each makes some very good points (I lean more towards Perriman), concerning “what lies beneath.” When Jesus speaks of a “divided hell,” should we be overly concerned about Greek mythology? It seems to me that those who focus on the references to pagan literature in the Bible fail to see the biblical sources of many things, even if these biblical things pick up Greek names along the way.

However, neither Wilson nor Perriman really deals with the architecture of God’s work in the world, which is what actually lies beneath. As with Shakespeare, an understanding of God’s “global theatre” enlightens us concerning the shape of His stories.

Early Genesis sets the stage for the rest of the Bible. The architecture set up by God shapes the rest of the Bible. The cosmos is a Temple, and the Man is to be a temple within that Temple. Later in biblical history, the Tabernacle was built as a mediator between the macrocosmic Creational temple and the microcosmic human one. We watch this house move through many cycles of death and resurrection, taking it from glory to glory, throughout the Bible. Like Adam, the Tabernacle was clothed with animal skins. Like Eve, the Temple, decked with precious stones and metals, “multiplied” the priestly function of the Adamic house into a “bridal army” (i.e. ten tables, ten lampstands, ten chariot-lavers).

So, the architecture of the Cosmos and the Man are illustrated for us in the architecture and ministry of the House of God, in both its sacrifices of blood and its sacrifices of praise. Man is to become “cosmic.” [2] Those whose eyes gazed at the stars are to shine like stars, and perhaps even colonize them at some point. [3] Greater glory is only bought with greater sacrifice. As suffering saints fill up the sufferings of Christ, a glorious Church fills up the world.

In Genesis 2, Eve was taken from Adam’s bosom. His was the first circumcised heart. It was a circumcision “without hands,” that is, carried out by the Spirit of God. As the Man came out of the “feminine” Land (eretz), so the Woman came out of the Man. Though she was now separate from him, he was still to be a safe place, a shelter, for her.

Adam possessed twenty-four ribs. They were a structure, a framework. Eve was literally “constructed” from that structure. As flesh glorified Adam’s rib, so Eve glorified Adam’s house. We see this echoed in the clothing of the High Priest. He wore the names of the twelves tribes in “childhood” form on his shoulders, and in glorious “adult” or bridal form on his bosom. The rainbow stripes in the black onyx shoulders were fulfilled in the fire-filled gemstones on his breastplate.

The twelve of the priestly tribes was doubled in the twelve of the apostolic witness. The New Jerusalem is a twenty-four, a complete structure, a bridal house to be filled. But how does all this relate to the “bosom of Abraham”?

When Adam died, his body was “scattered.” The work of the Spirit in “knitting” him together was undone. He returned to the dust. Due to his ethical lack of integrity, he disintegrated physically. Later on, when saints died, they were described as being “gathered” to their fathers. Although they were returning to dust, a scattering, they were still being gathered as one somewhere. In a sense, Eve was being put back into the bosom of Adam, but a faithful Adam. It was the bosom of Abraham, a justified Adam, an Adam who, though returning to the dust, would not be eaten by the serpent. The saints were still buried, but Abraham’s integrity made him a safe place to be buried.

The era of an earthly Promised Land stretched from the call of Abraham to the end of the Abrahamic divide, that is, from the institution of circumcision to its end in AD70. Abraham himself became a “Land promise.” His faith would reverse the “womb and tomb” sterility curses of Genesis 3.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Ephesians 6:1-2)

To be buried in the Land carried the promise of resurrection. When Sarah was buried in the cave in Machpelah, she was buried, by promise, in the bosom of Abraham, her faithful Adam. The faith of Abraham made the grave a safe place. Abraham’s faith “circumcised” the grave and made his part of it clean. All the faithful, though in the grave, were “deposited” into the body of an Adam who was dead, but an Adam who embodied all the promises because he believed them. Abraham himself was the “earnest” of the heavenly country, not just for Jews but also for Gentiles. So Matthew refers to Jesus being in “the heart of the Land” (Matthew 12:40).

The significance of Canaan as “clean dust” is reflected in the request to Elisha the prophet by Naaman the Syrian for a load of promised “Adamah.”

Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mules’ load of earth (adamah), for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the Lord.” (2 Kings 5:17) [4]

But the Abrahamic Covenant came to an end, and with it, the significance of an earthly (Adamic) country. Architecturally, this was the destruction of the bloody Bronze Altar and the resurrection of the fragrant Golden Altar, a heavenly country. God’s action in history was moving from outside the tent to inside the tent, from the Bronze Altar-Land to the Incense Altar-House. Abraham, and all those sheltering “in him,” needed the perfect Man to enter the heavenly country first.

This is what is happening in the Revelation. Jesus ascends as the head of the sacrifice. In AD30, Jesus, our High Priest, made His first approach on the Day of Coverings as Covenant Head. He then returned “in like manner” for the Covenant Body. This was the events leading up to AD70, fulfilling the vision in Daniel 7. The saints under the altar, all the martyroi (witnesses), from Abel to the apostles, entered heaven, as fiery bridal gemstones on Jesus’ breastplate, to sit on thrones, and call down the curses upon the old order. The last days are only ever the last days of the old order. [5] These were the “firstfruits” to God and the Lamb.

So, the division in Hades was between those inside the bosom of Abraham and those outside it. The bosom of Abraham was a circumcised heart, a circumcision “without hands.” Abraham himself was the promise of resurrection, of a “bridal body.” When he buried Sarah in the Land, she was resting in the promises made to Abraham, in his own bosom, until God constructed the Bridal Body and “closed up the flesh,” that is, the division between Jew and Gentile.

As an important aside, this is another reason why paedobaptism cuts against the liturgical order of Bible history. A tribal “cutting” does not belong in the Holy Place, but outside in the courts. The sounds of the cutting of stones for Solomon’s Temple were not to be heard at the Temple site. Jesus was “cut” outside the camp, outside the tent, but “knitted back together” as a new Tabernacle in the Most Holy Place to make the grave a safe place for those who believe. The Covenant sign was moving from bloody circumcision (Bronze Altar-Land) to a baptism of water (Laver) and access to the place of the advising elders (Incense Altar), from genealogy (external Law: Moses) to ethics (internal Law: Christ). Paedobaptism has no place in the heavenly country. It is for those born from the tomb, not the womb. As with the bosom of Abraham, the bosom of Jesus is not about physical succession. It is not a promise of salvation but a promise of resurrection to those who have already believed. [6] Eventually, the grave itself will be cut off. [7]

Interestingly, we see the two-fold “head and body” approach in Abraham’s life as well.

Abraham entered Canaan briefly to sacrifice Isaac (first approach of the High Priest – sins of priesthood – Adam). This priestly, tribal “cutting off,” a ceremonial sterility, made Canaan safe. Abraham then entered again briefly to bury Sarah (second approach – sins of people – Eve). The structure of the surrounding events follows the Mosaic festal calendar, and it places these two approaches at “Atonement,” the Day of Coverings (see Bible Matrix: An Introduction to the DNA of the Scriptures, p. 95).

So, the shape of events in Abraham’s ministry and life prefigured the entire Abrahamic age, circumcision to uncircumcision, Melchizedek to Greater Melchizedek. We are no longer gathered into the bosom of our father as a “cut around” spiritual tribe, but into the glorious bosom of his resurrected Son as a priesthood of all nations.

“Now there was [lying back] on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” (John 13:23 KJV)

COMING 2013: Bible Matrix III: The House of God.

___________________________________
[1] Doug Wilson: Hell and Hellenism; Andrew Perriman: Some Quick Notes on Doug Wilson’s Argument; Doug Wilson: Just What Siddhartha Wanted. I think Greek mythology owes far more to the Hebrew Scriptures than the New Testament owes to Greek mythology. See Did Plato Read Moses? I believe that both Wilson and Perriman are wrong about Jesus preaching to the antediluvians. See The Spirits in Prison.
[2] See Cosmic Language.
[3] See Barren Worlds.
[4] Elisha tells Naaman to “go in peace.” As horses speak of war, donkeys and mules speak of peace but also of believing Gentiles. Ishmael was to be a wild donkey (Genesis 16:12), yet a “Gentile sponsor” for Israel’s sacrificial worship. Abraham saddled a donkey for his trip to Moriah. Ishmaelites “carried” Isaac as the Gentile Sea “carried” the Israelite Land. Ishmaelites carried Joseph “out of the ground” to Egypt, saving him from his murderous brothers (whether they knew this or not). Balaam rode a donkey to convince that he came in peace when he came to curse. The donkey spoke “with the tongue of angels” to warn him. Same thing happens after Pentecost, when believing Gentiles speak to Jewish Balaamites as a warning. And of course, Jesus rode a donkey as the Prince of Peace.
[5] See One Taken, One Left Behind and The Last Trumpet.
[6] Paedobaptism is indefensible from Scripture at every level, an odious distortion of Covenant theology, liturgical sequence, biblical architecture and the work of Jesus.
[7] See The Circumcision of Satan.

Art: Duccio di Buoninsegna, The Harrowing of Hell.

“That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other.” (Luke 23:12)

“Secular humanism and Islam are merely the bipolar moods of Christless Christianity. They can be united only in suicide.”

Getting a grip on the Tabernacle layout helps us understand the architecture of Creation, the history of mankind and the structure of the entire Bible. After reading Mark Steyn on the Islamic/secular conflict in Europe, I was thinking that the same “Tabernacle” categories can be found in the world today. Whatever we do, however much we distort the truth, we are still bound by the walls and furnitures set up in Genesis 1. And, in my humble opinion, the light this sheds on the current conflict is not only revealing concerning its true nature, but it also helps us to predict its future.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

______________________________
[1] See Priest, King and Prophet and Great Prophets.
[2] See Half Man, Half Beast.

“Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the Land.” (Matthew 5:5)

Some more thoughts related to Walking on Water. Please read Joshua 3 before proceeding.

If the New Jerusalem is the fulfilment of the “wall of water” at the Jordan crossing, the Lamb at the centre of the city is the Ark in the middle of the riverbed, surrounded by a human government. [1] If you know your James Jordan, the Ark of the Covenant was an image of the Light that shone on Day 1. The Lamb remains at the centre of the city, surrounded by the firstfruits saints, until the last saint is redeemed and Christ hands the kingdom to the Father.

There are many historical events in the Joshua narrative that relate to this church age typologically. Besides the saints carving up the world as Promised Land, probably the most striking for me is the defeat of the Amorites in Joshua 10. King of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek (Melchi-Zedek’s evil twin, later in history), gathered local kings against the people of God. [2] James Jordan relates the sun and moon standing still in Joshua to the extension of the day of battle in the book of Esther. [3] Once again, the Promised Land was being conquered, and once again, they needed more time to finish off the enemies of God! Both events fall on their respective “Day 6s,” the time of Conquest, the Day of Atonement. The sun and moon have been replaced by the Bridegroom Who shines and the Bride who reflects His glory.

“The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.” Revelation 21:23 [4]

Adam and Eve, new sun and new moon, stand before God, exalted over the kingdom of beasts. The firstfruits church martyrs stood—liturgically—upon the beastly necks of the kings of another corrupted Jerusalem. In this age, as the body of Christ, we stand—liturgically—on the neck of the beast in the abyss. He will stay there as long as there are yet saints to cross over. In our worship, every week, we place our “corporate” foot on his neck once again in Communion. The church’s government under Christ is a big chain of heavy metal.

Day 6 is the Laver, resurrection, and the Day of Atonement. The church age began in earnest at the first resurrection and will not end until the second. [5] As the first century extended the power of Christ’s resurrection from Garden to Land, so this age extends it from Land to World, until all His enemies are under His feet. AD70 brought the Day of the Lord to Israel. The age of the church will end in the Day of the Lord for the whole world.

____________________________________
[1] For more on this “architecture,” see Bloody Throne, Bloody Frontiers.
[2] Jabin gathered the nations against Israel in Joshua 11. On gathering the nations, for good and evil, see A Conspiracy of Nations, Counterfeit Kingdom Come and Greater Amalek.
[3] I would probably also relate it to the sign God gave to Hezekiah that his “mediatorial” life would be extended in Isaiah 38.
[4] For how this New Jerusalem “architecture” was  symbolised by every Israelite, see Healing in His…Tassels?
[5] See The First Resurrection, The Second Death, The Rest of the Dead, For A Thousand Years and Jesus’ New Broom.

41. The cities of the nations never fell in A.D. 70 (Rev. 16: 19).

This is a symbolic passage, but when we understand its nature, its message is astonishing. The reference to Jerusalem being divided into three parts alludes to Deuteronomy 19:3 concerning cities of refuge. There is also a “trinitarian” judgment in Ezekiel 5. Both are the outflow of the structure of the Tabernacle, which in turn images the pattern of heaven. This verse in Revelation 16 is, ironically, at the Tabernacle/Ascension step in this matrix pattern:

Genesis: A loud voice: “It is done!”

….Exodus: Lightning, thunder and an earthquake (Sinai)

……..Leviticus: Herod’s Jew-Gentile worship disestablished:
……..Jews: The 3-level Tabernacle city is split up
……..Gentiles: the cities of the nations fall
……..(de-Ascension of those who exalted themselves to heaven)

…………Numbers: The harlot remembered and made to drink (Numbers 5)

……..Deuteronomy: Herod’s Jew-Gentile world de-created
……..Jewish mountains and Gentile islands (Abrahamic Land/Sea division)
……..are no more. There is no longer Jew nor Gentile in God’s economy.
……..Circumcision is totally meaningless.

….Joshua: Great hailstones fall from heaven upon men (or “Adams,”
….ie. Jews). This is the Laver step. The Old Covenant crystal sea is
….broken up and replacedwith a crystal city (Zion). The hailstones refer
….to those that fell upon the corrupted Jerusalem of Adoni-Zedek, a city
….that had been godly under Melchi-Zedek.

Judges: Instead of repenting and being wiser after such judgments, the men cursed God.

Both the great city’s priesthood (Jerusalem) and the Gentile oikoumene (Ezekiel’s Temple) are decommissioned. That is the meaning of this passage. It is a construction of worship that is being torn down here, not literal cities.

What is even more interesting is that this is the seventh bowl. Not only does each bowl follow the heptamerous pattern, but so do all seven together. The theme of this final bowl is thus the Feast of Tabernacles. It is a judgment upon Judah for failing to minister to the Gentiles and to join the new Jew-Gentile body of a slain and resurrected Israel. So unrepentant Judah would be uncovered. For this murderess, there was no city of refuge. Her mediating firmament (the crystal sea) was removed and she was face to face with the curses of the Law of God. All she did was curse Him right back.

42. Fishing in the Dead Sea is still off-limits (Ezekiel 47: 9-10).

This is another symbolic passage. But the symbolism is not a free-for-all. We all know that fish and fishermen symbols replaced sheep and shepherd symbolism as the gospel moved from Land to Sea, from Jew to Gentile.

The water is the knowledge of the truth flowing from a restored Judah after the restoration. It is interesting that the Dead Sea is revived but the swamps and marshes are not. The watery “Abyss” receives the water of life, but the compromised watery Land is given to a salty judgment. The hybrid behemoth, a Land beast living in waters, was the exact nature of Herodian worship.

43. A SINGLE wicked king did not persecute Israel from A.D. 67-70 (Dan. 11: 31-45).

This is the passage where dispensationalists say that up to verse 30 it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, but after verse 30 it suddenly and inexplicably jumps over 2000 years in history to speak about the Antichrist. Well, it does speak about the Antichrist. The wicked king is the line of the Herods. Philip Mauro championed this interpretation in his Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, and James Jordan proves it irrefutably in The Handwriting on the Wall. And no gap is necessary. The overall structure of the book of Daniel supports this also (see Totus Christus p. 303.) Herod was the “manface” of Rome on the faceless fourth beast. A pompous beast with the eyes and mouth of a man, speaking great things in the Garden of God. Sound familiar?

44. Thyatira (nor the other Asian assemblies) went through “great tribulation” (Rev. 2: 22).

From Peter Leithart (Jewish War):

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 sympathised 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 neighbours…”

“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 New Testament, 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.

45. Many who sleep in the dust (aphar) of the ground (adamah) did not awake in A.D. 70 (Dan. 12: 2).  [note: same Hebrew words are used in Gen. 3: 19].

If you believe there was a physical resurrection of the Old Covenant saints at the end of the Old Covenant, yes, they did.

50FPDZ

or Theonomy in the Bible

“…instead of Moses and Aaron challenging the powers that be, we have Herodian preachers crying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace. Nathan is not qualified to confront David because Nathan himself has been sleeping around.”

In his post Christianity as Comprehensive Cultural Tribunal?, timsmartt questions the validity of philosophy’s self-appointed role as an unbiased cultural referee and wonders whether Christianity should take that role:

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/2009/07/14/church-and-state/feed/ 0