So often the book of Revelation is treated like a prize in an Indiana Jones story…

Steven Opp’s review of “Moses and the Revelation.”

“It belongs in a museum!”

This is what Indiana Jones always tells the villain who is attempting to steal the priceless artifact.

I remember as a kid watching these movies and finding myself sometimes sympathizing with the bandits. If I had worked hard to unearth a valuable relic, I’d want to keep it for myself too, either as a trophy or to sell and get rich. I thought noble-minded Indy was being a stick in the mud.

But if you watch the films through to the end, you find that the stick in the mud always turns into the only ladder to heaven, faithfully walking in fear of the supernatural power of the living God while serving as a priestly mediator in order to cover the ones he loves, the real treasures.

So often the book of Revelation is treated like a prize in an Indiana Jones story. It is either left buried in the ground because it is too hard to understand, or it is made into an idol and like a Nazi power grab used to build a fantasy world, treated as a generator of grandiose theories or as a magical conduit of secret knowledge. Moses and the Revelation is Mike Bull’s way of bravely snatching the jewel back and telling us in no uncertain terms, It belongs in a museum!

By returning the book to its home with the rest of the Bible, Bull prevents us from making too much or too little of it as he dusts off its glitter while reconnecting it to its golden roots. In its proper place as the finale of a singular story with every line an echo or spin-off of something said elsewhere in the Word, Bull helps us see that while Revelation is fascinating, it is not an enigma. Its truest value is not in its “standing out” but in its “fitting in.” Bull shows us that the glory of Revelation, what makes it authentically heavy, is that it is deeply connected to the other texts and to first century history. This makes it much more difficult to run away with and use to fashion renegade doctrines.

Moses and the Revelation accomplishes two things. First, it takes the polish off of a lot of the exciting interpretations of Revelation you may be familiar with. It is much less interested in the headline news and much more interested in the Pentateuch. Like reluctant Indy in The Last Crusade chasing after his father’s dream, you are forced to go on the quest with the one you are all too familiar with, none other than Moses. And Moses has always seemed to take the fun out of things, what with all his bizarre interest in how to chop up animals or arrange furniture in the tabernacle.

But if you hang in there and give the old lawgiver a listen, you will find that Revelation is deeper and richer than you ever imagined. You will discover, like John did, that the words are not just meant to be read and interpreted, but are to be eaten. When you partake of Revelation in connection to the rest of the Bible the way that Bully serves it up, your mind will be molded by the ancient structures and symbols, and you yourself will become the thing of value because you are walking in step with the cadences of Christ. And thereafter whenever conversations arise among friends about what is going on in the last book of the Bible, you may be chided as the stick in the mud who wants to return the thing to the Gospels, to the Prophets, to the Torah.

But you’ll find that at the end of the day you will be the one with his feet firmly on the ground, standing fast when the catastrophes of bad exegesis crumble around you.

You can read the introduction to Moses and the Revelation here. You can purchase the book in paperback or for Kindle here.

Reformed theology is the best school in which to learn about covenant theology, yet it is also the worst place to learn about New Covenant theology. Why is this so?

Reading a to-and-fro between a baptist and a paedobaptist recently, it struck me that despite the fine manners and scholarly diligence on display in the responses of both gentlemen, neither of them really had a grip on what they were dealing with.

The prime example was the way in which each relied on the Abrahamic Covenant to support his case. The paedobaptist accused the baptist of spiritualising this covenant, while the baptist accused the paedobaptist of “carnalizing” it. Both of them were cherrypicking in order to support their take on God’s covenants in general.

Now, theologians love to generalise in order to avoid doing the grubby work of dealing with specifics, and one ubiquitous theological meme, dripping with clever evasiveness, is the statement that there is both continuity and discontinuity between each covenant, or each stage of the overall covenant of God with men. Apparently there is some entirely arbitrary “spectrum” of relevance in each covenant, and we are supposed to isolate the elements which are common to all covenants to discover what a covenant is. Then we can figure out whether “covenant membership” is based on faith, or heredity, or tribe, or all of the above.

“…both sides get an F when
it comes to covenant theology.”

On the “baptistic” side, things tend to slide into a realm where the physical rites, baptism and communion and even corporate worship, are considered to be less important than “my personal relationship with Jesus.” The New Covenant sign is “faith,” but since true faith expresses itself in willingness to submit to discipleship under Christ’s representatives, in examination of heart, in a desire to be with other saints, in prayer and good works and in legal testimony before the Church and the world, this error is easy to deal with.

On the “paedobaptistic” side, the focus on the rites, the “covenant signs,” leads to:

a) an illogical splitting of the sacraments in the withholding of communion until a baptised child comes of age;

b) united paedosacraments which merely serve as a legalistic “claim” upon the baptizand until they are truly born again; or

c) united paedosacraments which somehow regenerate the receiver without any requirement of actual repentance.

As I have written elsewhere, each of these three conclusions is an attempt to deal with the doctrinal fallout of the errant rite of paedobaptism in a slightly different way. The conflation of circumcision and baptism necessitates the redefinition, or scapegoating of something, somewhere. In order to preserve the tradition, the scapegoat chosen for sacrifice is either the necessity of personal conversion (and the redefinition of “faith”), or the global nature of the New Covenant, or the efficacy of the sacraments.

However, both sides, baptistic and paedobaptistic, get an F when it comes to covenant theology. The baptists are right when it comes to the necessity of hearing the Gospel and responding in faith as the defining characteristic of a Christian, but generally they have little idea of what a covenant with God actually is. “Covenant” is just a word to describe God’s “agreement” with Noah, Abraham and Moses. There is little understanding of a covenant as a process, with delegated authority, rules for success, desired results and accountability, and a use-by date. It is these “missional” elements which are the things common to every biblical covenant, yet somehow these are totally overlooked in the continuity/discontinuity debate.

“…the solution is an aspect
which both sides in this debate,
as far as I know, have either failed
to discern or failed to apply.”

The paedobaptists, generally speaking, at least understand what a biblical covenant is. The problem is that since they are stuck with their baptismal tradition, they pick the Abrahamic Covenant as their benchmark for covenants. This renders them enemies of many fundamental differences between the various covenants, which are simply the result of the fact that each covenant has a different mission. They are so keen on the maintenance of the notion of a “Covenant people” delineated by a sign that they force the covenants both before and after the Abrahamic Covenant into the Abrahamic mold. The rainbow is turned into a “sign” upon Noah and his family, when in fact it was a sign upon all creation, one which endures to this day. New Covenant baptism is turned into a “corporate” sign upon all members of a believing household, either conferring “covenant membership” (legalistic accountability) or “infusing” some level of faith without the hearing of the Gospel.

Paedobaptism is a mongrel of a doctrine, an ugly mix of conflicting designs and crossed purposes, which is why its meaning is impossible to define or agree upon even among those who practice it. But it gets worse. For some paedobaptists, the fact that there was no sign of “Covenant membership” upon females under the Abrahamic Covenant, as they believe there is under the New Covenant, means that they go looking for one. Some have suggested that the Levitical “purity rites” for Israelite women served as a sign of membership in some fashion. But although this is a rare assertion, it does demonstrate just how far off the track people will go when following an errant doctrine to its logical conclusion. Since every person within their imagined New Covenant boundary must be “stamped” by Jesus with their “hybridised” New Covenant baptism, this leads them to seek something similar under the Abrahamic Covenant when clearly there was no such thing. For a start, the Levitical rites can have no bearing on membership of the Abrahamic Covenant because they were not instituted until Moses, four centuries later. Females were under the Abrahamic Covenant without any personal sign. Even more inconveniently, there was no personal sign upon anyone whatsoever under the Noahic and Adamic Covenants. They have allowed the stipulations and purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant to distort their comprehension of the New Covenant, and then their perverted understanding of the New Covenant requires the distortion the Abrahamic Covenant. This is not “Covenant continuity” but enforced “equalisation,” the theological equivalent of gender neutrality. It is a wilful twisting of the Scripture to defend the indefensible, bordering on the brand of hermeneutical travesty committed by the Roman Catholic Church in defence of its own coercive and highly imaginative traditions. Yet regardless of how much they must sacrifice, doctrinally-speaking, and how many ludicrous notions they must consider to maintain this shibboleth, they consistently refuse to question their devotion to this age-old household god. I find this incomprehensible.

However, for two thousand years in God’s economy (not today), one was either a Jew or a Gentile, either in Abraham or not, so there clearly was some kind of “membership.” Is there a way that we can understand the history of the greater Covenant, taking into account each of its varied stages, including the ways in which each stage uniquely complements and contrasts with the others, that enables us to discern both what is continuous or discontinuous and why? Most certainly there is, and the solution is an aspect which both sides in this debate, as far as I know, have either failed to discern or failed to apply.

“In some sense, only a twist on
the Copernican revolution in
covenant theology can unite
the schizoid sacramentology
of the modern Church.”

When Covenant history is diagrammed by the experts on both sides, it is inevitably linear. This is understandable, since history itself is linear. But a journey from the boundary of our solar system to the heart of our sun is also linear, although the solar system itself is not. My assertion here is that the various covenants throughout history are not segments but spheres, not lines but layers. Passing from the orbit of Mars to the orbit of the Earth does not render the orbit of Mars redundant or non-existent.

Likewise, we must understand that the establishing of the Abrahamic Covenant did not nullify the Noahic. The Covenant with Noah was in full force in its original form at least until the end of the Abrahamic Covenant in AD70, for the Gentiles were still obliged to keep its basic stipulations. This fact was the basis for the judgment of James at the Jerusalem Council of the Church in Acts 15. There was no need to put believing Gentiles under the Law of Moses. Nor was there any need to circumcise them as members of the Abrahamic extended family, the dispersed tribal nation of Israel. Yet, (and what follows here we must understand if the disgusting fissures in our sacramental unity are to be closed and healed) these Gentiles were still “under Covenant,” just not the Abrahamic one. This is because the Abrahamic Covenant did not exist after the Noahic Covenant, nor even alongside it, but within it, just as the orbit of the Earth exists within the orbit of Mars. In some sense, only a twist on the Copernican revolution in covenant theology can unite the schizoid sacramentology of the modern Church.

Since Covenant history resembles the medieval concept of the celestial spheres,¹See also String Theory the “outer limits” consist of the reach of the covenant intended to be ratified in Adam. The word “covenant” is never used of Adam, and this is because he failed to qualify for kingdom. The word is not used until God spoke to Noah, the first man to qualify as a righteous judge, a man who could legally represent God on earth because he was found faithful in the eyes of heaven. However, the curse of death remained. This was because the Noahic Covenant was ratified within the Adamic one. All men were still in Adam.

“…the Mosaic Covenant
was ratified not in opposition to 
but within the Abrahamic one.”

When Noah’s offspring sinned in ways that can be corresponded to the offspring of Adam, another global deluge was on the horizon, covenantally-speaking: the destruction of all flesh. To keep the promises to Noah, God divided humanity in two in Abraham. However, the Noahic order of priest-kings, such as Melchizedek and Jethro and Job, still ministered among the Gentile nations as “sons of God,” which may explain the persistence of accounts similar to the early chapters of Genesis not only in the Ancient Near East but also in just about every culture around the world. Every human being was still a “member” of Adam, and a “member” of Noah, yet only those in Abraham’s household were members of this new genealogical-tribal covenant. Noah was not replaced. Like Adam, he was “divided” that he might later be conquered and glorified.

The main players in the Abrahamic line reversed, in many ways, the failures of Noah’s sons, but in Moses they were brought to maturity, both in size (as a nation) and accountability (in ministry). Israel was baptised into Moses and another covenant was established, and here we see centuries of wasted ink revealed for what they are as we understand that the Mosaic Covenant was ratified not in opposition to but within the Abrahamic one. Every Israelite was still in Adam, and still in Noah, and of course in Abraham, but not every Israelite was a member of the tribe of Levi. The Levitical order served within Israel as yet another layer, smaller and with even more concentrated standards of purity. Within the tribe of Levi, only males of a certain physical and moral standard were permitted to serve as priests, and even then under a roster of temporary vows, a division between the common and the uncommon in holy office. Then, of course, there was the High Priest, the focal point of this particular layer, but even here, since the Aaronic order was genealogical, God made a covenant within it, giving Phinehas the succession since he was found faithful.

This layered “geocentric” process can also be observed in the developments or refinements in the sacrificial praxes. Adam was to offer himself, but judgment for his failure was stemmed by God‘s mercy in the first substitutionary sacrifices. They were slain and offered whole but not burnt. The first burnt offering — or “ascension” — was presented by Noah, picturing his office as a mediator with authority from the heavenly court. Humans were now permitted to eat flesh, but not blood. In Abraham, picturing the division between Jew and Gentile, certain animals were chosen by God and cut in half by Abraham. Under the Levitical Law, animals were not only presented and cut to be offered by fire, but the various parts were allocated to different purposes, places and people. In a sense, the move towards the High Priesthood of Aaron was a cutting away at the flesh of Adam (or his substitutes) to get to the heart of the matter.

But of course, history did not stop there. The temple and priesthood were glorified under the inspired administration of King David, and here we observe yet another “eternal” covenant. Of course, you should by now understand that the Davidic Covenant existed within Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the Law of Moses (as expressed in the Psalms), being “under”, that is, accountable, to all of them, as they related to, operated within, mediated for and expounded upon each other. The holy center of this new, smaller, even purer, orbit, was not the hearing of the laws under priesthood but the incarnation of the law in true kingdom.

Following the failure of Israel’s kings, there was another division, and another covenant, this time with Jeroboam. His “orbit” was actually outside, larger than, the covenants with Levi and David, and his envy of their centrality was at the heart of his rebellion and idolatry. This envy was also at the heart of the rebellion of Korah, who apparently believed that every tribal leader in Israel should be a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek/Noah.

After the exile, a “new covenant” was established under Ezra and Nehemiah, Zechariah and Haggai, as predicted by Jeremiah.²See Jeremiah”s New Covenant. The priesthood would serve as keepers for the Davidic line, and now every Israelite, not just the priests, was required to prove his genealogical heritage. The latter prophets rail against the sins which led to the downfall of the previous kingdom, and this newly restored Israel, like the second generation in the wilderness, avoided the idolatries and adulteries of their forefathers. But the point here is that even this “new” covenant was ratified within all the previous ones.

Now we reach the center of this grand celestial construct, and it is of course the New Covenant in the blood of Christ, a covenant which was ratified within all the other covenants and yet fulfilled and succeeded them. In His baptism He was Noah, with the witness of the dove (Creation – Day 1). In His death, He was the circumcision of Abraham, cut off for the world (Division – Day 2). In His Ascension (Day 3), as the Lamb worthy to open the scroll, He was Moses on the mountain, receiving the Law of the Spirit. At Pentecost, He brought the kingdom of God, the law in the hearts of men (Testing – Day 4). In the testimony of the apostles, He was Israel scattered among the Gentiles, establishing New Covenant synagogues (Maturity – Day 5). In the destruction of Jerusalem, He was a new Israel freed from idolatry and adultery under “Babylon” (Conquest – Day 6). And with the covenantal knife finally reaching the heart of the matter, the construction of the Bride was complete, and it is in this light that we must understand the marriage feast of the Lamb in Revelation 19 as already fulfilled in history (Glorification – Day 7). All the old demarcations were eradicated, or more correctly, transformed.

Since our High Priest has entered into and recast the fiery center of the system, the entire Old Testament history is now a magnificent, seven-ringed “armillary sphere,” wheels within wheels, an apparatus of heavenly measurement which incorporates and employs in perfect harmony the specific authority of each of Jesus’ major Covenantal predecessors. It is now we who must follow Him from that center, from personal conversion into our families, tribes and nations to the outer limits, where the final enemy, death, will be destroyed, and the universe will be renewed. But all of these elements are already “in Christ” and thus already in our hands. In Emmanuel, God is with us, not only in our hearts, but to go up and possess our inheritance.

“All men, women and children
were always under covenant
with God in some form…”

The conclusion concerning “Covenant membership” and the concept of “Covenant children” in the binary sense as understood by many paedobaptists is that these were uniquely Abrahamic features and obligations, earthly stoicheia, carnal elements serving as stand ins for the heavenly parts of a much greater picture. Now it makes sense why God kept “moving the goal posts,” each level of promise and inheritance becoming redundant with the call to sacrifice it for something greater. Even Abraham understood that Canaan and his offspring were only object lessons for the possession of a heavenly country as tried, qualified and glorified sons of God, enthroned with Christ for rest and rule.

All men, women and children were always under covenant with God in some form, and the notion that baptism, especially paedobaptism, puts people “into the covenant” is absurd. Baptism is the foundation not for life, but for a life of service, of ministry, of accountability and discernment as a “son of God,” just as it was for the world under Noah, and for Israel under Moses.

All people, including all children, even the yet unborn (who cannot be paedobaptized if miscarried), have everything they could possibly have in the Gospel of Christ. The death of Jesus put them into this covenant, under obligation to the great High Priest and King of Kings, and also under His mercy. To limit His jurisdiction to some renovated or hybridised version of the Abrahamic demarcation is to grossly misunderstand Covenant history, defining the glorious New Covenant by one facet of its construction. Our “Covenant community” is not in here. It is out there.

This is why Reformed theology is the best school in which to learn about covenant theology, yet it is also the worst place to learn about New Covenant theology.

“In the days when our courts are declaring that good is evil and evil is good, the recovery of baptism as a delegation of divine legal authority rather than a sign of ‘limited Covenantal obligation’ is crucial.”

Every biblical Covenant is a word from heaven designed to bring a response from the earth. When the laws in the Ark of the testimony were given to Israel, the response of a legal oath was required, intended to culminate in the legal witness of Israel to the nations. Thus, every biblical Covenant is also a process which leads to maturity, beginning with cultivation and ending in representation.

A child must be schooled before he can be employed. A man must be a disciple before he can be an apostle. Adam was to be qualified before he could represent God as a just and merciful judge on earth. But the difference between cultivation and representation is the difference between circumcision and baptism, and this facet of the biblical Covenants is something paedobaptists are unable to accept, at least in its full glory.

Leaving Home

My friend Peter Leithart, once again, has written a brilliant article concerning this process of maturity.

Can we protect our kids from the world and prepare them for it?

Parents can draw guidance from an unexpected source: Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where Paul describes Israel’s history as a centuries-long process of child-training (Galatians 3–4). When Yahweh first brought his son from Egypt, he gave clear, detailed commandments and exercised strict discipline. Israel was, Paul says, “no better than slaves.” But this was always intended to be a temporary arrangement. The law was a tutor, but when faith comes, then “we are no longer under a tutor.” Israel was under guardians and stewards, but then God sends Jesus and the Spirit so that “we might receive the adoption as sons.” Overall, it’s a progression from childhood slavery to mature adulthood.

We can see this progression within the Old Testament. Early on, Yahweh created a comprehensive world that was at once a protection and a pedagogy. He gave his creatures stories, songs, structures, and rules—many rules. By the time of the kings, Israel had grown up. Instead of being withdrawn from the nations, Israel began to make good on the Abrahamic promise to be a light to the nations. Kings and queens streamed to Jerusalem to hear Solomon’s wisdom. Exile was both a judgment and a commission: By the time Nebuchadnezzar deported the Jews, they had become true children of Abraham, capable of leaving home for a land they didn’t yet know.

All this adds up to a rough but useful pattern for child-rearing. On the one hand, parents should have no problem treating their children as “slaves” during their youngest years. “No” is not a swear word; eight of the Ten Commandments begin with “No” (in Hebrew), and one of the two positive commands is “Honor your father and mother.” We don’t send toddlers into combat, and we shouldn’t send them into the warzone of the world. Should we sequester young children in an artificial cocoon of peace, love, and virtue? Absolutely.

On the other hand, the goal is to prepare them to leave, and to keep their heads as they pass through the big world outside. Like the God of Israel, we prepare them by gradual manumission. Some years ago, I read in a now-forgotten book that a parent moves from commander to coach to counselor. We give orders to little kids and require obedience. We coach them through the challenges of young adulthood, giving them room to make decisions, fail, and try again. By the time they’re ready to leave home, the commands should be second nature, and we offer advice to help them over the rough patches.

As Christians tell it, at the end of Israel’s story, the Lord doesn’t command Israel to “return.” Instead, Jesus, the God of Israel made flesh, sends the new Israel of the disciples away: Get out of the house. Fill the corners. The Hebrews started as priests, serving in Yahweh’s house, living under command. They grew to be kings, conquering and ruling a land in wisdom. They were sent out on a prophetic, then an apostolic mission, no longer slaves but sons, heirs of God. It’s the perfect pedagogy of the perfect Father, and we do well to imitate it.¹Peter J. Leithart, Rearing Slaves, Rearing Sons, www.firstthings.com

Leithart describes perfectly the purpose of cultivation as preparation for representation, of training our children that they might leave home to change the world. Yet once again he fails to make any connection between this process and the difference between circumcision and baptism.²See Exposed to the Elements. Circumcision was about cultivation (“Hear O Israel” — word as seed). Baptism is about representation (“Go and tell” – profession/witness as fruit).

Judicial Maturity

For the Covenantalist / sacramentalist, the New Covenant sign means pretty much the same thing as the Old one did: cultivation. The sign is somehow believed to contain maturity in “seed form,” and Leithart has to read Galatians backwards to cram the judicial maturity of New Covenant baptism into something that can be applied to infants. See Reading Galatians Backwards. However, if Israel was in training until Christ, and only then was baptism as we now know it instituted, how can baptism ever be a sign of earthly pedagogy? Surely a personal confession by our children (and a desire on their part for baptism) is the time to celebrate a parenting job well done?

Adam heard the law but did not “image” God legally. He listened but failed to “Go tell” when the Word was challenged by the first false teacher. Unlike Adam, Noah heeded the word and became the first true prophet. Each was under the sword (cultivation) but only Noah took it up (representation as a judge).

We see the same contrast in Israel in Egypt (under the sword) and Israel at Jericho (wielding the sword). In the big picture, this is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. This might be why the Covenant has moved from circumcision/Land to baptism/Table. We are following the life of the harvest from its natural origin on earth to its supernatural destiny as a communion between heaven and earth. The process begins at the root, works its way to fruit, and finishes at the table of God. The food on the table is the “qualified and glorified” representative of the cultivated land.

Culmination and Initiation

Now, the paedobaptist might object by saying that life is a continuous process of cultivation, and indeed it is. But these levels are not the same. An infant’s gown is not the same thing as a graduation gown or a wedding gown. There is “cultivation” in the womb, there is the “cultivation” of childhood, there is the “cultivation” of study, and of courting, and there is “cultivation” as a minister of God. Infant baptism is thus the breaking of the waters in the womb and cutting of the umbilical chord. This is the only way “paedo” can ever be linked with “baptism.” Physical birth ends cultivation in the womb and begins physical representation of the parents by the child.

Breaking the waters signals the end of something old and the beginning of something new. So baptism is a new beginning, and is thus both culmination and initiation. But what does baptism bring to an end and what does it allow to begin? Where does baptism fit among all these varied stages? Well, what does a biblical baptism picture? Death and resurrection. Baptism is linked inextricably to a ministry as a living sacrifice, a martyr for whom death is gain, given the power to bless and curse as a spokesman for God.

Unlike circumcision, baptism does not speak of being a child of men but a son of God, that is, a legal representative, a prophet. It ends the period focussed on submission to heaven and begins the subsequent dominion of earth. Noah’s Great Flood “baptism” ended the old world and began the new one, but the new order was one of greater maturity and more authority in office. Noah blesses and curses with the full authority of God, a chosen ambassador. Baptism ends “legal” childhood under the stoicheia and begins a ministry of legal representation of God.

Baptism is about office, not flesh. It is supernature, not nature. Jesus spoke of a new birth, but He was not talking about more sons from Sarah’s or Rachel’s wombs. He spoke of the firstborn from the dead, and the legal witness which would follow. Paedobaptism confuses the Covenant “Oath” (Adam’s faithfulness) with the Covenant “Sanctions” (the resulting gifts from God), the same error made by the Jews and Judaizers in the first century. It is a subtle seizing of the Tree of Kingdom without prior submission to God.

Conflated Births

Each era of cultivation speaks to the others, but conflating them is an enormous mistake when it comes to the meaning of baptism as legal representation. Baptism accompanied the sign of tongues and the explosion of prophetic ministry across the world. To claim it is about cultivation rather than representation is a backward step. This puts the criticism of the Christian Jews in Hebrews 5 into context. They were still “hearing” like Israel, but stuck on the Old Covenant basics.

About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:11-14)

Hebrews refers to the physical cultivation of childhood to describe spiritual cultivation. The saints should have been on the wine (strong food), and past the “milk” of the Covenant basics. Despite being raised as Jews, they were still getting a grip on the basics (cultivation) when they should by now have become teachers (representation). The author is not saying that these people were actual babies. Since they conflate the first birth with the second, paedocommunionists give wine to actual babies, which exposes their paradigm as a profound misunderstanding of some very basic things. The Church is the “nursery” of culture, but the Federal Vision unwittingly turns the church into an actual nursery. The earthly image is mistaken for the glorious reality, rather than merely a stage in the process.

This answers Dr Leithart’s strange case against us baptists who “talk to our babies.” He misguidedly conflates two very different stages of human life. Advocates of paedofaith quote Psalm 22:9-10 without thinking too deeply about it. David himself poetically conflates the care of his heavenly Father with the care of his earthly parents, but only poetically:

…you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God…

One certainly images the other, but these levels of cultivation are not the same. David’s parents were representatives of God in David’s boyhood cultivation. The ministry was from the hand of God but it came via mediators. In the New Covenant, we are no longer under an order administered by angels. We are now the angels, the messengers. That is the point of baptism. To claim that these very different periods of cultivation are the same thing is to claim that a child of men is, without ethical qualification, a son of God. But as in Hebrews, these are not the same thing. Although there is continuity between the child and the adult, a child is not an adult, and the flesh is not the Spirit.

The sacralizing of the first birth rather than the second unwittingly feminises the New Covenant. The New Covenant is about God’s sons, not ours, which is what Jesus’ baptism was all about, and why He had no physical children. The Church is not a nursery for the training of infants but a barracks for the training of soldiers. The Federal Vision’s hybridised New Covenant, with its “two tier” baptism, is just Abrahamic foozball in the clubhouse. Nurturing our children in the Lord is certainly a grave responsibility, but the real game is with Jesus out there on the field. Abraham’s inheritance was his own children. Jesus’ inheritance is the nations of the world.

Jesus’ Baptism

Based on Jesus’ baptism, the rite is a ceremony of graduation from the authority of Joseph the carpenter to the Craftsman of all Creation. Each stage prefigures the next, but the stages are not the same, just as the first birth is not the second birth, and just as the regeneration of one individual is not the regeneration of the world. The image is not the reality, yet although it is a part of it, conflating them is a form of idolatry, an over-realised eschatology. This explains the “sorcery” of Israel, whose leaders thought their earthly lineage made them acceptable to God. The Pharisees were indeed sons of Abraham (image) but not sons of God (reality). They were Jews but not what Judaism imaged or pointed to, thus not true Jews. “Dominion” was thus seen to be the result of breeding rather than legal witness.

The “baptism of the Spirit” was what officially ended the time of cultivation of the disciples and officially began their apostolic witness as representatives of Christ.

Jesus’ baptism signified the end of His personal cultivation on earth and the beginning of His representation of heaven. However, Jesus had four of these events, and even these must not be conflated, since they are stages of growth in stature and maturity: Circumcision (earthly father), Baptism (heavenly Father), death and burial (Table), ascension and return (enthronement). This process works from earth to heaven, from the Bronze Altar, through the Laver, into the Holy Place and ends on the kapporet. We see this exact sequence in the architecture of Exodus 24, which was the culmination of Israel’s physical cultivation as a nation, culminating in only the legal representatives dining with Yahweh on the mountain.

Likewise, in the life of Jesus, each of these events ended a period of cultivation and began a greater level of representation. The “baptism of the Spirit” was what officially ended the time of cultivation of the disciples and officially began their apostolic witness as representatives of Christ. This might be why the martyrdom of the saints in Revelation 14 is presented as a “fractal expansion” of the death of Jesus: the white harvest of the oikoumene (cultivation) was cut down and gathered for the table of God (representation).

Israel’s Baptism

Paedobaptists mistakenly think that Israel’s corporate baptism supports their errant rite, but even the nation of Israel was baptised for the sake of legal representation. Israel was not baptised into Abraham but Moses. Why? Circumcision was about cultivation (Abraham to Joseph) but Israel’s baptism was about representation (Moses to Joshua), her mediation for the nations.³See Destroy This Temple And within Israel, it was only the Levitical priests and the sacrifices — those who represented Israel before God — which were washed as mediators. The priesthood of all believers, the sign of which is believer’s baptism, came only at the end of Israel’s history. Israel’s annual feasts were also a process of cultivation (preparation for ministry) and then representation (witness) to the nations at Booths. Like the end of her annual feasts, this was the completion of her cultivation under the Law of Moses and the beginning of her ultimate ministry to the nations.

As Leithart fails to mention, protecting our children from the influence of the world until they are ready to influence it illustrates for us in microcosm the purpose of circumcision in history. The children of Israel were taken out of the nations that they might be matured, able to judge between good and evil, and then put back among the nations as a corporate image of the justice and mercy of God.

The Old Testament is claimed to offer support for paedosacraments, but even within the history of “Israel according to the flesh” we can see that circumcision and baptism meant very different things.

As we have seen, the institution of circumcision culminated in Israel’s “baptism” through the Red Sea and the “table” on the mountain. But just as the events from Abraham to Joseph were cultivation (Canaan to Egypt as Forming), and the events from Moses to Joshua focussed on legal representation (Egypt to Canaan as Filling), we also see these two elements within this secondary stage in legal terms, that is, legal cultivation and legal representation. The nature of Israel’s baptism as a sign of judicial maturity is the point paedobaptists miss when they note Paul’s allusion to these events. Since they are satisfied that their erroneous practice is vindicated, they fail to think any further about it. This is not only terrible exegesis, it is a failure in “Covenant theology” from its traditional experts.

The process in Israel’s journey from Egypt to Canaan is entirely legal, moving from external law (childhood) to internal law (adulthood), and this is why Paul refers to it in 1 Corinthians 11. The “exodus” of the Church from the Egypt of Herodian worship was fundamentally Ethical in nature. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being set apart genealogically as Israel was. It amazes me that this fundamental difference is consistently ignored.

Between Egypt and Canaan, the judicial maturity of Moses the prophet was to be “measured out” in the hearts of Israel. Israel was given the “Nos” of the Law and possessed Canaan only when the new generation said “Yes.” The process follows not only the Creation Week, but also the pattern of sacrifice. What began as raw flesh and blood was offered voluntarily to God and became a fragrant cloud of smoke, a pleasing testimony. Whereas the narratives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob focus on the reversal of physical barrenness (Sanctions), the wilderness journey is all about “ethical fertility,” that is, richness towards God (Oath).

To claim that Israel’s corporate baptism is any kind of foundation for paedobaptism is to misunderstand the difference between circumcision and baptism. The Old Testament is claimed to offer support for paedosacraments, but even within the history of “Israel according to the flesh” we can see that circumcision and baptism meant very different things.

The Land of Israel

Circumcision was a boundary for farming, fencing off a people and Land for cultivation. The promise of fruit from the Land and fruit from the womb cannot be separated, either in Adam or in Abraham. This is why animals are always treated as part of the Old Covenant household of faith. The animals were the only truly “blameless representatives,” serving as substitutes for Israel as the firstborn of God, both her physical sons (cultivation, Exodus 4:22) and her ethical sons, the Levite priests (representation, Numbers 3:22).⁴See The Case for Covenantal Animal Baptism. If this twofold process seems strange, we must remember that Israel gave a tithe of its harvest to the Levites (cultivation) and the Levites then gave a tithe of that tithe to the Lord (representation). Man’s table is not God’s table. Differentiating between the sons of men and the sons of God under the New Covenant should not be difficult for theologians since it is woven throughout the very fabric of the Old Covenant.

Paedobaptistic ecclesiology is still working on the Abrahamic microcosm, the hobby farm.

Israel was set apart from the nations by circumcision, and cultivated by the Law. When Gentile believers mocked the Jews, Paul reminded them that this cultivation was of great benefit.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means… (Romans 3:1-3)

The oracles of God were beneficial, just as our preaching to our children is beneficial. Whether or not it produces fruit, the process of ploughing, sowing and watering is a holy one. But when circumcision was ended through the death of Christ, the time of cultivation was over. It was time for the harvest. Paul also reminds those in Rome that both Jew and Gentile were still “under sin.” In Christ, the focus moved from seed to fruit, from cultivation to representation. Circumcision and uncircumcision meant nothing once there was spiritual fruit. When one brought forth spiritual fruit, the field from which one came, cultivated or uncultivated, Jew or Gentile, became irrelevant.

Baptism is not about seed but about fruit. Paedobaptism misguidedly sets a boundary of cultivation (planting the seed), which might explain why infants are “sprinkled.” But biblical baptism is about harvest, and Matthew 28 says there are no longer any fences. God harvests where He will. Paedobaptism tries to make the Church the field to be farmed, when the Church is actually a silo for the harvest, and a barracks for the workers. Paedobaptistic ecclesiology is still working on the Abrahamic microcosm, the hobby farm.

Since the “field” is now the entire world, the “nurture in the Lord” is not merely for our children but for all people everywhere. When one believes, one becomes a representative, a speaker. Since circumcision is gone, there is only the Gospel (cultivation) and witness (representation). There is no sign for cultivation, any more than there was before the time of Abraham. Baptism is only for legal representatives.

Paedobaptism makes the New Covenant as parochial as the old, as this comment from a paedobaptist demonstrates: “When you try to evangelize and disciple people who do not have the Spirit and who have no faith, you have no guarantees or promises or statistical probabilities.” This assumes that the Gospel has no power unless there is some kind of “fence” to contain it. Not only does this make no sense, we have no such guarantee anyway. We are simply told to sow the seed, water, and trust God for the increase.

The four “household” events recorded in the book of Acts were signs of the end of the old order, shifting the Covenant from the sons of a man to the sons of God, from physical forming to spiritual filling, from vessels to treasure, from cultivation to representation. If infants had indeed been baptised, this would make the New Covenant a limited obligation, a limited cultivation, like the Old. So it cannot logically be the case. It must therefore be a sign of representation, the sign of circumcision of flesh fulfilled in the circumcision of the heart of the believer.

Imitating Christ

To make baptism about cultivation under the Gospel rather than authority as an ambassador of the Gospel is to misunderstand the temporary purpose of the nation of Israel as a bootcamp for prophets. One must hear (cultivation - Land) before one can speak (representation - Table). Although Abraham was not baptised, he was qualified at various stages and only then ate before God with Melchizedek. Hebrews 5 says the same thing of Christ Himself, who was qualified before being given His great office.

If we want to celebrate parenting, baptism surely comes at the end of a job well done, at the beginning of ministry. The glory of a newborn is not the same as the glory of a child who chooses wisdom over folly. This glorious New Covenant rite is not one to be dismissed as “individualism.” Israel was baptised into Moses the prophet, but now all the Lord’s people are prophets, legal representatives, wise judges of what is good and what is evil. In the days when our courts are declaring that good is evil and evil is good, the recovery of baptism as a delegation of divine legal authority rather than a sign of “limited Covenantal obligation” is crucial.

At which point were the apostles sent out? In the big picture, it was after the institution of baptism. The Covenant moved from commander to coach to counselor — priesthood, kingdom, prophecy. As Leithart says, “We do well to imitate it.” But he does not. His ecclesiology is stuck in the Abrahamic childhood of the Church, and his sacraments are all about earthly parenting. Israel was baptised into Moses’ “No.” A believer is baptized into an uncoerced “Yes,” the testimony of Jesus Christ, the first sign of spiritual maturity. It is the day when a son or daughter becomes an eternal brother or sister.

After conversion, our “judicial” cultivation certainly continues until our baptismal investiture is fulfilled in resurrection. Only then will we truly represent God, enthroned with Him not only by faith but also by sight.

_______________________________
ART: The Ambassadors, Hans Holbein the Younger

Is our justification a past event or a future one? The debate continues while the answer is, like Adam and Eve, hidden in plain sight.

The problem with most theological discussions concerning our justification is that they are imagined in the courts of men rather than in the court of God. What is the difference between these two courts?

The courts of men are either sanctuaries or courtrooms, priesthood and kingdom divided like the house of the Lord and the house of Solomon. But God’s court is the domain of priest-kings, that is, prophets. The “third tree” is always a Tree of Righteousness, a Man clothed not in fig leaves but in the glory of God, who is a shelter for all those on earth.¹The book of Genesis begins with the nakedness of Adam, and ends with Joseph, a young man who loses his robe a number of times but ends up feeding all the nations through his heavenly wisdom. See also The Third Tree.

The False Prophet

God’s court is where His representatives, “the sons of God,” not only worship Him as His subjects but also report to Him, and even advise Him as elders. This is exactly what Abraham did concerning the destruction of the cities of the plain, and it is very likely that it was during one such courtly appearance that the Lord pointed out to Satan his servant Job, who was a priest-king like Noah, Melchizedek and Jethro.

The first time God held court with Man was after the sin of Adam. Words from God, an abundant promise (kingly rule on earth) and a restraining law (priestly submission to God), had been given to Adam. He, too, could be a priest-king, but this would require a response, a word from Adam. In fact, it would require two words: a denunciation of the works of the devil on earth, and then a confession, an oath, before the God of heaven. This oath would have been something like: “Here is the woman you gave to be with me. The serpent deceived her, but I present her to you now as a chaste virgin.” Following this very first Covenant oath would have come blessings from God, “Well done!” and then the opening of the Land and the Womb in abundant fruitfulness. Instead, of course, Adam justified himself but in entirely the wrong way. He shifted blame, and the Lord gave him a chance to confess—a negative oath, but a true confession nonetheless. In our confession of sin we cross the courtroom to the Lord’s side against ourselves. But Adam failed again, and forced God to shift the blame—onto sacrificial substitutes.

In the court of God, all sins exist in a single body, incorporated in Man’s role as the image, the representative of God. Thus the High Priest represented all Creation before God (being the only Israelite permitted to wear combinations of animal, vegetable and mineral) and the Prophets represented God to the entire Creation (with access to the Garden, the Land and the World), speaking in the secular courts of the nations. Only in the Prophets is there a link between the court of God and the courts of men.²This brings the background of sacred architecture to light in Paul’s condemnation of the saints’ failure to judge between themselves in 1 Corinthians 6:3. It might also explain Jesus’ ministry’s in “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1) and in the Temple “Gentile” courts, a faithful Jewish testimony before all nations.

Thus, the animals which the Lord slew to cover Adam’s sin were a taste of the death of all flesh, all the animals whom Adam represented before God, since he shared the same breath. But for now, the heavenly breath, the indwelling Spirit of God, was denied him. He would not be a Prophet. The rest which would have come on Day 7 included rule and representation. But Adam failed to serve the Lord in the day of small things,  so he would not be given anything greater to do. Failing to speak for God, we never hear a word from him in the Bible ever again. His life continued, but his testimony, and his intended Prophetic ministry, was ruined.

Adam’s iniquity, his gross sin, was a failure to balance the scales of justice before the nations (in this case, Eve, the mother of all living) and to advocate for them before God, the exact opposite of what prophets are supposed to do.³The English words iniquity and inequity are both derived from the Latin aequus, meaning equal, the only difference being the scale of the difference.

What is Justification?

To justify something means to show adequate cause. The problem with our sin is that the scales never balance. There is never a cause great enough—even in our own minds—to justify the enormity of our rebellion against God, since all sin is at heart an unwillingness to believe that He is good when His promises are challenged by satans and circumstances. And that brings us to the truth that justification is always a Covenantal act, which means it is part of a process.

This is what we see in the first legal case in history. Justification comes after an ethical response to the Law of God, and it results in the expression of either the Lord’s pleasure or displeasure, as blessing or cursing, a judgment which then affects the future.

In the Covenant pattern found throughout the Bible, this assessment and confession before God, a legal hearing, is found at the fourth step.⁴For an introduction to the Covenant pattern, see Reading the Bible in 3D, and then the more detailed Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key.

All adult Israelites took a Covenant Oath at Sinai, and they broke that oath soon after by worshiping a golden calf. Many died at the hands of the Levites, but the entire generation died at the hand of the Lord in the wilderness. It is worth noticing that this process occurred at exactly the same point in the initial cycle of the Abrahamic Covenant, from Canaan to Egypt and back again:

This oath-breaking is the legal scenario behind the many times when the Lord speaks of His people honouring Him with their lips but not their hearts. So this initial cycle of delegation—taking the Oath—leads to another event where the Lord returns to assess whether or not His delegates kept their promises, that He might keep His. Either they would be justified through their obedience, or God would be justified in condemning them. Of course, this is where the mercy of God comes in, and it is no accident that in the sevenfold festal pattern (as presented in Leviticus 23), the Day of Atonement corresponds to the Oath/Sanctions step of the Covenant:

You might notice that this seven-point pattern is a microcosm of the first seven books of the Bible. It is also the pattern of Israel’s entire history from Abraham to AD70.⁶See Bible Matrix: An Introduction to the DNA of the Scriptures for a full rundown.

What is very interesting is that this exact pattern is found in the Ten Commandments—but only if we follow what is known as the Jewish “Scroll Division” favoured by Augustine.⁷See Q&A: Why Ten Words on Two Tablets?

Theft and false witness in this construct are Adam and Eve, or Church and State, in the courtroom of God. A testimony is required of them. Adam attempts to cover his sin, but Eve gives a true testimony. As it was at the condemnation of Christ by the Jewish priesthood, their testimonies did not agree. A false testimony is always somehow a condemnation of God.

As two conflicting testimonies, heaven and earth, Priesthood and Kingdom, like Adam and Eve, were set in conflict forever until the Prophet came, a better Adam. When two or three (as legal witnesses) are gathered in His name (as a legal confession, identifying them with the atoning sacrifice), He is there among them, and there is rest, rule and representation, the Day of the Lord. They are justified in His sight.

It is worth noting that this is also the basic process found in every sacrifice. Although the Levitical sacrifices allowed men to eat with God for the first time, all the previous sacrifices were whole burnt offerings, or Ascensions.⁸See The First Ascension. Every sacrifice was a microcosm not only of the Creation Week, but also of the history of the entire world, thus the entire world could be judged in the final sacrifice of the Son of God.

Now, although there is a priestly washing at Division (the sacrifices were washed), it was not until the smoke ascended from this earthly Laver to the heavenly Sea, the court of God, that Yahweh was pleased. The waters above and those below were united in a good way by a sacrificial mediator between heaven and earth. It was the Circumcision and then the ministry of the Levitical priesthood which prevented another Great Flood.

But what we must notice here is that the offerer was not vindicated (if obedient), or not justified (if disobedient but repentant), until step 6. Even if we are disobedient, God Himself is vindicated in a faithful confession of sin (Psalm 51:4; Romans 3:4).

Take Me to court; let us argue our case together. State your case, so that you may be vindicated. (Isaiah 43:26, Holman)

Now, every baptism in the book of Acts follows this pattern.⁹See for instance New Covenant Virility, but I am sure you can see this pattern easily in each story now that it has been pointed out. All baptism account put baptism at Conquest, or Oath/Sanctions. That is, the profession of the saint on earth vindicates God in heaven. The name of Jesus on the lips is the vindication of the work of God in its circumcision of the heart, making it priestly, that is, submissive towards God. Peter the apostle understood this clearly, even if not every Peter does. Faithful testimony is a fragrance which pleases God.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (1 Peter 3:21).

So baptism is tied to the Covenant Oath, and the Sanctions. The Father looks upon the Son and is pleased, just as Yahweh smelled the savour of sacrificial smoke and was pleased. This means that the hybridisation of circumcision and baptism in paedobaptism—in sacrificial terms—is the offering of raw flesh to God. But no flesh can be justified in His sight. It must first be transformed by fire, and ascend as fragrant smoke. The evidence of transformation is the “smoky” testimony, in word and/or deed.

Baptism Justifies You

Peter Leithart was recently hauled over the coals by Tim Bayly¹⁰Peter Leithart: No Baptism, No Justification for linking baptism with justification.¹¹Peter Leithart, No Sacraments, No Protestantism Pastor Bayly cannot allow this, because he, like Doug Wilson, has divorced baptism from actual conversion. However, although Peter Leithart is, I believe, correct that the apostle links baptism and justification, he and all the more consistent Federal Vision guys think sons of men can be made sons of God “objectively” through baptism. These gentlemen will keep fighting among themselves until suddenly one day the penny drops and they identify paedobaptism, their little “household god,” as the cause of all this confusion. I have explained this numerous times to no avail but I look forward to, well, being vindicated.

Since baptism justifies one, what then is justification? Vindication in court. And those who appear in God’s court, which is where Jesus was at His baptism once the heavens opened, are required to give a testimony. Baptism is for representatives of God. It is not for the children born as the fruit of the earth, nor for the angels of heaven, but for the Spirit-filled saints who are hybrids of heaven and earth, as the first Adam was intended to be.

Past or Future

Is our justification a past event or a future one? The debate continues while the answer is, like Adam and Eve, hidden in plain sight.

The problem is, as always, that we are dealing in fractals. One man can die for all because the one represents perfectly the whole. The Justified One is a mediator, uniting the waters, or perhaps keeping them apart. He stands on the crystal sea, the court of God, as a slain lamb, after being washed in the Laver on earth. The ministry of Christ thus moved the High Priesthood from the Jerusalem below to the Jerusalem above.¹²See my commentary on Galatians 4 in The Shape of Galatians: A Covenant-literary Analysis.

So justification is always a two-fold event, Covenantal bookends, just as the Oath and the Sanctions represent the beginning and end of the Covenant process. Circumcision of the flesh of Israel eventually led to a Pentecostal circumcision of heart. The Abrahamic Covenant began with a household of circumcised sons of Abraham and ended with the sign to the Jews of households of “sons of God”—legal witnesses who were both Jews (Church) and Gentiles (State). Thus, these events did not establish a new “household” order at all.¹³See The Household of Faith – 3 The process moved from childhood to adulthood, from a people set apart in Abraham and baptised into Moses as one flesh, to a supernatural Body of Adams and Eves robed in white and acting as mediators. That is what Christians are: legal representatives and advocates between heaven and earth.

So for the believer, justification is a set of bookends, both past (conversion) and future (resurrection). A true baptism, after all, looks just like a resurrection. If yours did not, it was not a baptism.

ONE MAN: Justification of God in the courts of Men

• Delegation (Step 2): Hearing the Gospel – Circumcision of heart (NOT flesh)
• Vindication (Step 6): Initial public testimony and baptism (profession)

ALL MEN: Justification of Men in the court of God

• Delegation (Step 2): Testimony before God to the world, beginning with baptism, the first step of public obedience in the Spirit as a Covenant representative (as Adam was supposed to be)
• Vindication (Step 6): Testimony (as a witness/martyr) before men, and resurrection

Justification is thus both past and future. Those who are truly born again will persevere. The testimony of Jesus (the Gospel “oath” on earth) is its beginning and His testimony in heaven is its end, and the end looks a lot like the very beginning, only with a better Adam as our legal representative, the first Man to be baptised and have the heavens open above Him.

So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)

At that time the Lord said to Joshua,
“Make flint knives and circumcise
the sons of Israel a second time.”
(Joshua 5:2)

Was Israel disobedient in its failure to circumcise every male born in the wilderness? The Lord never chastised them for this. If this lapse in the practice of circumcision was in the plan of God, what was the purpose of that plan? The example which first comes to mind is the circumcision of the firstborn son of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

Many of the obscure and apparently obsolete details in the Torah are hints of events later in the Bible. Some of these details are not what is said but what is not said. And some of these unspoken hints are discernible only through identification of common structures. One example is a line missing from Genesis 1.

.

CREATION

In the second Stanza, which concerns Day 2, there seems to be a space left deliberately empty that it might be filled.

Genesis 1:6-8

TRANSCENDENCE
And said God, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
(Creation – Ark of the Testimony – Initiation)

HIERARCHY
Let it divide between the waters and the waters.
(Division – Veil – Delegation)

ETHICS
And made God the firmament,
and divided between the waters under the firmament,
(Ascension – Bronze Altar – Presentation)

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -(Testing – Lampstand – Purification)

and from the waters above the firmament.
And it was so.
(Maturity – Incense Altar – Transformation)

OATH/SANCTIONS
And God called the firmament heaven.
(Conquest – Laver – Vindication)

SUCCESSION
And were the evening, and the morning, the second day.
(Glorification – Shekinah – Representation)

Here, there are many hints of future events, such as the “Testimony” in Line 1 parting the waters (As Moses parted the Sea and Joshua’s priests with the Ark parted the river). The interesting thing is that the lower waters became the source of the Land, the earthly Altar (Line 3) and the upper waters the arena of government, the crystal sea below the heavenly Altar (Line 5). The setting for each is hinted at in the structure of this Stanza. (Note that the actual creation of the firmament also seems to be a fivefold pattern with the “Ethics” missing.)

But the focus here is the missing line in the center. Here, God tore open a holy place for the Sun, Moon and Stars. Since Genesis 1 is a fractal, each stanza follows a similar pattern and yet there is a progression in the whole which expands on the one laid down in the first Stanza. What is missing from “the space between” in Stanza 2 is created in Stanza 4. This would be the reason why Day 2, or rather what was created on Day 2, was the only element that was not proclaimed “good.”

Genesis 1:1-2:3

1  Light and Darkness
(Creation – Ark of the Testimony – Initiation)

2  Waters Below and Waters Above
(Division – Veil – Delegation)

3  Dry Land and Firstfruits
(Ascension – Bronze Altar – Presentation)

4  Sun, Moon and Stars
(Testing – Lampstand – Purification)

5  Swarms in Sea and Sky
(Maturity – Incense Altar – Transformation)

6  Animals and Man
(Conquest – Laver – Vindication)

7  Rest and Rule
(Glorification – Shekinah – Representation)

We know that Adam failed to enter into God’s rest, the first Sabbath. A shedding of blood allowed God to open to Adam the fruit of the Land and the womb as He had intended, but with humbling limitations. The curse of death was mitigated only partially, and temporarily, through the sacrifice of animals.
.

DIVISION

Israel’s history follows the same pattern, but what was once expressed in the Physical realm was now expressed in the Social realm. What was divided was not the waters but their representatives, the “waters” of the nations. The “stars” (waters above) and “sand grains” (waters below) promised to Abraham find their “Firstfruits” in Joseph, but there is no Pentecostal harvest.

You might notice that Israel’s failure is what stops this pattern being neatly chiastic. The forty years in the wilderness was another, similarly-shaped pattern, with the death of unfaithful Israel in the center, for their worship of false gods.

The stars missing from the original pattern but installed in the greater pattern were not Physical but Social. The serpentine kings of Egypt fell from the sky in a great darkness and a dividing of the waters, but the wise kings of Israel eventually filled the heavenly court and shone like the stars. David and Solomon were “Pharaohs” who listened to the testimony of Moses.
.

ASCENSION

In this case, as the book of Hebrews tells us, Israel failed to enter into the heavenly country perceived by Abraham and all those of like faith.
.

TESTING

This brings us to the big picture, the shape of Genesis 1 as it is played out across the entire Bible. The question is, who are the stars at the center? Why, the true sons of Abraham, of course, Jews and Gentiles who believed, beginning with those who shone on the day of Pentecost as a human Lampstand.

As with Abraham, God’s household in heaven was a tent of servants — the angels — but there was only one Son, through whom came all Creation. Just as the creation of the firmament between heaven and earth in the Physical realm was not “good” until it was filled, and Abraham’s empty tent was not “good,” so also the human firmament, the mediators between heaven and earth in the Social realm could not be proclaimed “good” until they were filled with the Spirit of God. Subsequently, it should be no surprise that in the book of Revelation, which follows the same structure, the Hierarchy is seven churches, an earthly replica of the seven spirits before the throne, a Lampstand decentralized and surrounding Christ, who communes with them between heaven and earth. This is a new Creation, and it is good.

________________________________________________
On the sons of Abraham as stars, see also Babylonian Bookends.

ART: Abel Pann, Abraham, ‘Look now toward Heaven, and count the stars…’ (Genesis, XV, 5)

Part II – The Black Sabbath

“For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night,
in the sight of all the house of Israel throughout all their journeys.” (Exodus 40:8)

Continued from The Household of Faith – 1

“You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” (Exodus 35:3)

Israel took the man who was collecting kindling on the Sabbath and nipped his sin in the bud. His intentions were plain, so they wanted to know what should be done with him. It sounds brutal, but Exodus and Leviticus give us a plethora of strange laws for Israelites. At least, they seem strange until we understand that not only was Sinai replicated in the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle was to be replicated in every Israelite tent, and indeed in every Israelite. Every household was a tent of God, a cloud, and every Israelite a burning star in the sky. The tribes were, after all, arranged around the tent in military “constellations.” This new Black Sabbath was to reconnect every tent with its source, the tent of God.

The man executed for collecting kindling is referred to not as an Adam but as an Ish. Ish is Adam’s “new name,” a Covenant/bridal name, in Genesis 2. It may be related to the word for fire. “Strange fire” is thus spiritual harlotry, and this man is a Covenant breaker. He has put his own household, his own authority, above the authority of God. Perhaps the reason his actual motives are not recorded is the same reason such things are not recorded elsewhere in the Bible. It is to force us to contemplate the events in the fiery light of the Law. We are called to judge these situations, just as Israel did in this instance. This is one time they got it right. [1]

What was the reason for the introduction of the Mosaic Law? It was because of transgressions, not merely those of this generation, but also of the tribal heads, the lawless brothers of Joseph. The multiplication of Israel into a nation required a national law, although, as suggested above, this law also made every Israelite a “living sacrifice.” Its ethical, ceremonial and civil elements cannot be untangled from each other, any more than Father, Son and Spirit could be divided.

On the Sabbath day, the only fire was to be God’s fire. The only warmth, God’s warmth. The only light, God’s light. To have one other light visible among the tents would be to claim autonomy. Perhaps this darkness was a disciplinary measure after the idolatry of the golden calf. Without a fire for every household, the Sabbath would have resembled the ninth plague in Egypt, where the entire land but for Goshen was veiled in darkness. And Goshen was a Garden. A single brightness coming from the tent of meeting would be like the flaming sword at the Gate of God. Every Sabbath would be a reminder that Israel had failed to enter into God’s rest.

Immediately after this new commandment, Moses called for donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. This was a new creation. Light and darkness had been divided, with only the light of God visible. That was Day 1. Now the construction of a new house began.

At the end of this process, the glory of God moved in, and those who had been in darkness saw a great light. This building process takes us from Day 1 to Day 7, and we see a correspondence in Israel’s entire festal year, with one major difference.

The Sabbath Week becomes the “first day” in a sense, as a pattern for the entire year. And the Feast of Booths becomes Day 7, when Israel, after the Day of Atonement, has been purified, and is now ready to invite all nations to participate. It is at this feast that every house becomes a “glory cloud.” At the Feast of Booths (Ingathering), every house had its own fire. In this great international feast, Israel symbolically entered into God’s rest. Instead of a Black Sabbath like that of Adam, God became the father of lights. His promises would still come to pass.

____________________________________
[1] For a manifold revelation of how often we moderns misjudge the events of Genesis, get a copy of James B. Jordan’s Primeval Saints.

or Semina Divina

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” (Mark 5:30)

We aren’t told in Genesis 9 what Ham’s intention was when he “uncovered” his father, Noah. Peter Leithart and James Jordan both present some fascinating insights (which differ from each other), but perhaps there is a solution elsewhere in Genesis, which, combined with both these possibilities, offers something new.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in Praxeme: Journal of Systematic Typology.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

I’m currently working hard on Bible Matrix III: The House of God. This third volume is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. It really is. Being so engrossed in the shape and processes of the Bible (yes, even more than usual), it has struck me how foreign the various theological schools’ thinking and speech is to the actual text.

The debates about “Pauline Theology” are the perfect example, especially the focus on narrow (yet important) topics such as justification. An academic divides and redivides the text in the way an expert in any science overspecializes. He ends up knowing everything about nothing. After spending a few hours each day wandering and describing the halls of biblical architecture, I am more convinced than ever that the only way to fully understand Scripture is architecturally. This is because, for our glorious God, architecture is ethics, and ethics is architecture. Divorced from the biblical mud map, the Edenic grid, modern theologians are discussing less than a dim distorted reflection of the book God has given us. They are feeling their way around the house with their eyes shut.
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!

_________________________________
ART: Cody F. Miller

“Once the architecture is taken into account, the text is not ridiculous but terrifying. It marches inexorably through the deep rhythm of the seven days with laser precision, stately deliberation, and omniscient vision. These words were breathed by the source of all breath.”

Part I – Picking Up Sticks

“You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” (Exodus 35:3)

Many Christians ignore, and atheists poke fun at, the weird bits of the Bible, as though these texts are primitive, distorted, or contrived. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that these texts are designed to choke the faithless, and to be chewed over, meditated upon by the faithful, that we might be changed.

Why was fire forbidden on the Sabbath? The first thing to do with any text is identify its context. No more treating Bible texts like fortune cookies, do you hear me?

Firstly, it is the first new commandment after a “new covenant” has been given. It follows the breaking of the “old covenant,” that is, the first pair of tablets after Israel’s sin with the golden calf, and the establishment of a “new covenant.”

The account of that sin is flanked by “Tabernacle” chapters. Before the sin are the chapters of instructions for the building of the tent of meeting. After the sin are the chapters concerning its actual construction. The golden calf is a “fiery” event at the center of the process, between the Word and the Flesh.

However, there is also fire at the end.

So Moses finished the work. Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:33-35)

You might notice that the cloud covered the tent (external) and the glory filled the tent (internal). Here are the Old and New Covenants, external and internal Law. But the point is that the glory of the Lord did not fill the house until all the materials were donated, crafted and assembled.

The Tabernacle was a substitutionary model of the Lord’s people, their own tents being gathered around it in Numbers. At this point in Covenant history, the people themselves could not be filled with the glory. James Jordan observes that the timber poles of the court and the tent, “trees of righteousness” (having been cut down and “resurrected”, transferred from nature to culture) represented God’s people at one level, the Natural. Then the timber furnitures in the Holy Place, covered in gold, each one with an architectural “crown,” represent the glorified people of God at an even holier level, the Supernatural.

The Lampstand was a replica of the “burning bush” which was not consumed, but the entire tent was a gathering of wood which was not consumed by the fire of God. Moses, had he entered the tent, would have been consumed in this house which despised the flesh. The house was a picture of resurrection: a tree which remains evergreen, despite the cutting of the wood (Bronze Altar) and the most ferocious testing by fire (Lampstand), it was covered in a “cloud” of fragrant leaves, burial spices which could not die (unlike those which Adam and Eve used to hide themselves – Incense Altar).

So, what of the text? It follows the “Creation Week” order of the Tabernacle elements, which give us a clue as to its meaning. Once the architecture is taken into account, the text is not ridiculous but terrifying. It marches inexorably through the deep rhythm of the seven days with laser precision, stately deliberation, and omniscient vision. These words were breathed by the source of all breath.

Moses, with face veiled, was speaking as the mouth of the uncreated Word:

We must learn these patterns. They are the manner in which God always speaks. Every splinter of the Bible is, as Peter Leithart commented, a lens through which the entire Bible is refracted. If we do know these patterns, we will see that the household fire not only corresponds with the filling of the Tabernacle with the Shekinah, but also with the Feast of Booths, otherwise known as Tabernacles, and Ingathering. The word “booths” literally means “clouds.” [1]

The feasts are not given until Leviticus 23, but the point of Booths was that every Israelite household, now purified after the Great Day (Atonement), would be a temporary Tabernacle, and Israel would minister to the nations. This is what the world would have been like had Adam not sinned. A man would leave his father and mother (now the dead stone tablets in the Ark [2]) and establish a new household of faith, yet filled with the Spirit given to faithful Adam in the Garden. [3] The entire world would be filled with lights, (much like those nighttime satellite photos), just like the stars in the sky. But the light would be Triune: Physical (Genesis 1), Social (Genesis 2) and Ethical (Genesis 2), a house of many dwellings (John 14:2), each in its own unique way a three-level house like the Tabernacle.

So, the significance of the prohibition goes beyond the labor necessary in those days to kindle a fire. The Sabbath, picturing our final rest, and the glorification of all nations, is the day when the only fire is that of God dwelling in all human flesh as evergreen burning bushes, trees of righteousness who are not consumed but animated by the Words of God. A household fire on the Sabbath was a strange fire, a sin against the entire congregation, much as any false religion, philosophy, ideology or heresy is a sin against all mankind, a fire that must be stamped out.

It seems that gathering kindling on the Sabbath instead of being “gathered” to God made one an idolater. One’s own household was usurping the household of God. In Numbers 15: 32-36, the people of Israel understood this. They judged with wisdom based on the stoicheia given them in Exodus 35. In this instance, they themselves became “transcendent words,” that is, self-governing. Israel was becoming the holy house which consumed the unholy within it.

Once again, an awareness of the structure of the text fills me with awe and terror. It follows the fivefold (closed scroll) pattern, yet the word of the Lord is sevenfold, a curse upon One Man that is the blessing of a new creation for all Israel. The Sanctions cycle and the entire cycle end with the phrase “outside the camp” in the place of Booths, or Shekinah. The strange fire, the false god entertained by this Adam, must be cast out. This “new commandment” would remind them to love their neighbors as themselves, as one household, a household of faith.

Jesus was One Man, gathering timbers and sticks for kindling for His own house on the Sabbath.

“I came to cast fire on the Land, and would that it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49)

“The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.” (John 10:31)

____________________________________
ART: Moses and the Burning Bush, Joe Moorman.

[1] See A Place Called Clouds.
[2] See Why Ten Words on Two Tablets?
[3] See Spirit of Adam 1 and 2.