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.

The analogy between human beings and animals, seen throughout the Bible, means that in the animal world there are some who represent the whole.

A Brief History of “Sacrifice” According to the Bible: Part 5

by James B. Jordan, Biblical Horizons No. 253 (subscribe at www.biblicalhorizons.com)

And Noah built a communion-site (altar) to Yahweh.
And he took from every clean animal and from every clean bird,
And caused ascensions to ascend on the communion-site.
And Yahweh smelled the pleasing aroma.
And Yahweh said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground (’adamah) because of the man (’adam)… (Genesis 8:20-21a)

This is the first altar, or communion-site, we see built by anyone in the Bible. Likely Seth and Enoch and Noah before the Flood had places where they brought their gifts to God, and these might have been elevated mounds reminiscent of the high ground of Eden, but it is only now, after the Flood, that we see the notion of some kind of communion between God and man. And this communion is linked to the sending up of sacrifices to God. The ascension from the top of the mound (altar) creates a ladder to heaven and makes possible this communion.

It is communion at a distance. Noah is on earth; Yahweh is in heaven. Much closer communion comes with Moses, so that a Peace meal is added to the Ascension, and the Ascension itself takes on the meaning of going up the ladder to be next to God. This is because God will come down and put His presence on the earth in the Tabernacle. This has not happened yet.

Noah sent up “clean” animals and birds. Noah had been told to take on the ark seven pairs of these clean animals, and only one pair of the “not clean” animals (Genesis 7:2). We should denotive that these are not “unclean” animals. The technical term “unclean” (tame’) does not show up until Leviticus 5, where it means something associated with death when in the presence of the tabernacled-presence of God or His special people. Here at the Flood the difference is between representative and non-representative animals. The clean animals are those who can be sent up to God to represent all the rest of the world.

This notion of representation has been hinted at already. It is clearly the line of Seth that is the priestly and representative portion of the human race (Genesis 4:4, 25-26). The analogy between human beings and animals, seen throughout the Bible, means that in the animal world there are some who represent the whole. We don’t know what animals and birds this group consisted of. Later on, chickens and deer are considered clean, but are not put on the altars of Israel, and it seems that the limitation of animals to just five happens with Abraham (Genesis 15). Noah may well have caused many different animals to ascend.

These clean animals are sent up to God in Ascension as signs that Noah is giving the whole world to Him. Noah can do this because he is the first true king under God. He has passed through death and resurrection in the Flood and has been given, thereby, a true foretaste of the benefits of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He has become “like God,” and will “know (judge) good and evil” when his “eyes have become open” (Genesis 3).

Noah has ascended through the Flood-exodus to a new world. He is on a mountaintop, like the original high ground of Eden. Like God, he plants a garden. This garden is a vineyard, producing a more advanced kind of fruit that will become wine, the symbol of kingly rest in the Bible. There comes a time when Noah retires from the scene to rest, as God did on the seventh day, leaving Adam and Eve alone. Noah returns to his sons, his eyes open from sleep, and passes godlike judgments on them, determining the course of their futures—creating their futures as it were.

Noah can do this because God has announced the coming of limited human kingship. People are now officially permitted to eat animal flesh (Genesis 8:3-4). Godly people may have been allowed to eat meat before the Flood, but now it is made official and part of God’s covenant with man. The blood of animals, however, may not be consumed; only the “blood of grapes” (Genesis 49:11). Moreover, men in kingly positions are now authorised to pass judgment of life and death (8:5-6), just as God passed a death judgment on humanity in the beginning.

This is Noah’s new position, it is what qualifies him to be the first to offer up an Ascension to God. Adam gave the world to the devil. Now, since the king has given the world to God, it belongs to Him, so He will not destroy it again even though men are as wicked as before. After Noah, all people are allowed to send up smaller Ascensions to God, one animal at a time, thereby giving their own small worlds to Him.

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.

For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:38-39)

Most disputes concerning the meaning of the Scriptures are not due to a lack of trying when it comes to hermeneutics. They result from a lack of due process. By this, I do not mean the process of interpretation but the identification in the Scriptures of the processes of God.

An example would be the meaning of Christ’s words concerning the unpardonable sin, which have terrified many Christians unnecessarily. Blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable not because it is the worst sin. It is unpardonable because it is the last sin.

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!

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!

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “Blessed… Blessed…”
(Matthew 5:2-11)

Part 1 is here.

Just so, the first natural words formed a testimony given before the first natural audience. They follow the structure of the Ten Commandments. [1] This was the first prophecy.

Reading the Ten Words back into the first speech by the first human Lawgiver also shows a movement from the natural to the ethical. It recapitulates the movement from the “sacrifice of blood” to the “sacrifice of praise,” from the Tabernacle of Moses to the Tabernacle of David, etc. Eve is not spoken to. She is referred to in the third person. Her naming is a legal blessing and witness before God. You might notice that this stanza is the Sanctions of the greater pattern, and Succession follows in vv. 24-25, with the requirements for the foundation of a new household, a new “delegation.”

You might also notice that each horizontal row moves from Adam to Eve, and the entire process also moves vertically from Adam to Eve. Adam is protology (Genesis) and Eve is eschatology (Revelation). The Woman is always the “at last.”

The Veil of Flesh

Adam did not need to learn to speak (or presumably, to write). He was physically (naturally) mature. But now (“at last”) for Adam, the natural was also bifurcated. It was Social. Adam was now corporate. For the Physical to become Ethical, there must be a Social in between, that is, a veil of flesh. Bone is to flesh as law is to love. Adam is structure and Eve is glory. The spiritual/ethical words spoken by God were to become the “environment of fire” between them, for good or ill, blessing or cursing.

We see this triune order in the architecture of the first three chapters of Genesis.

In Genesis 1, Adam is a Physical creature, part of the created order. In Genesis 2, the focus zooms in on Adam to tell his story as a Social being. This involves cutting flesh and reuniting flesh, something which did not occur with the animals, whose law is earthly, tied to the blessing or cursing of the ground. Genesis 3 tells the story of Adam as an Ethical creature, one who is not only to represent the created order to God above, but to represent the heavenly order to the creation below. The movement is from being, to knowing, to loving. Of course, loving (of God and of Eve) is where he fails.

This brief history of Adam (the individual) becomes the history of corporate Adam. As discussed, the first Covenant was tied to nature, thus all nature which had “breath” was destroyed. But after Noah, Covenant history moved from the Physical to the Social. The cutting of circumcision avoided another “natural” destruction by creating a microcosmic “world model” in Abraham. Just as it was for Adam, this was a time of promises and foreshadowings. The subsequent history deals with a Social creation, that is, Israel and her Tabernacle as a microcosm of the Physical world. The revelation at this point is fundamentally Social. The expectations of the Law concern external obedience. The fight against evil is a fight against its expression in the flesh, both within Israel and through holy wars with other nations. When Israel sins, the flood that comes is not water, but the restless sea of the nations, first Babylon, then Rome. This explains why the prophets use “creation” language in their “social” judgments. The wrath against all flesh would fall upon a “firstfruits,” Israel as God’s firstborn. [2]

The final world model was Christ (“Now is the judgment of this world” [John 12:31]). In Jesus’ baptism and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost (head and body), history moved from a Social architecture (based upon circumcision) to an Ethical revelation. Consequently, the Law also changed. The “external” Laws of Moses were replaced by the indwelling Law of Christ, expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

The serpent was finally crushed, and the revelation given to us now is the mind of Christ, not an inflexible moral code but an organic, living, adaptable one (which is why the Pharisees had so much trouble with Jesus — they did not understand the Spirit of the Law). Jesus fulfilled the ethical demands of the “Social law” and began the age of a different kind of Ethics, the era of obedience in the Spirit. [3]

History in Adam

Jesus, as a blameless Adam, became the mouth of God, The Prophet Like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; John 1:20-21). He breathed on His disciples with natural breath, a liturgical act prefiguring their reception of the breath of the supernatural Spirit after His ascension. He was the first “Angel of the Lord” who not only took on human form, but took that human form, that flesh, justified, into heaven, to represent the entire earth in the heavenly court (see Part 1). He then shared that Spirit with the disciples who would be a new kind of “heavenly visitor,” founding a new microcosmic Social model, the Church.

So, the pattern of the history of mankind follows the shape founded in the creation of Adam.

Now, although the process is chiastic, it is also a progression. As with all good chiasms, the correspondences in the second half are developments upon their counterparts in the first half. Eve is a “development” beyond Adam. He is protological. She is eschatalogical.

So the original Physical world of Adam and Noah was not as glorious as will be the final Physical restoration. Moreover, and here’s the rub, the Social world of Israel-according-to-the-flesh was not as glorious as this fragrant new Social world of the Church. If we overlay this “all history” cycle upon the process we observed in Genesis 2:7, we can see that Israel is to the Church as the formed shape of Adam in the dust was to Adam breathing, speaking, naming. Of course, the same pattern is found in Adam’s qualification for the heavenly breath.

Since the process in the cycle above is cumulative (as is the entire Bible), we should modify it to express this.

The Spirit becomes the heart of a new society, then that new Spirit-filled society becomes the heart of a new physical order. We see this prefigured in God’s Ethical preparation of Israel before her inheritance of the Land of Canaan. But the first Pentecost was a Pentecost of death. It was much like the disqualification of Adam, who like Aaron, failed to speak against the shiny beast and his strange fire. The Last Pentecost changed everything.

The new social body is not like the old social body which concerned the cutting of flesh. It is a body of those indwelt by the Spirit because their hearts have been cut. It is not about the cutting of Adam to construct a bride (circumcision). This New Covenant body does what Adam was supposed to do. It does not represent the Physical creation to God, nor represent a “forming” Social moral code to its counterpart. Filled with the Spirit, it represents God to the Social and Physical orders with plenipotent authority — the mind of Christ. [4] Baptism is about mediation and representation as a co-regent with Christ. The New Covenant sociology is entirely different to the Old. It works from within, not from without.

As mentioned, to complete the chiasm the physical order must be restored. This is not what we are working towards because it is beyond our power. Those who want to argue about “Natural Law” are confused about the triune construction of reality. Natural Law is still corrupted, as reflected in our own bodies, in the animal kingdom, and in the corrupting autonomy of certain “natural” processes, which have become laws unto themselves. Our domain is Social. It is the transformation of individuals and culture. The natural laws themselves, and indeed the “natural breath,” are still instruments of cursing, which is why the last enemy that will be destroyed is death, when every natural mouth will be stopped. AD70 was only the end of the old Social order, not the end of the corrupted physical order, although each level is a type of the other. (The “Covenant Creationists”, confusing the “social” flood of AD70 with the “physical” flood of Noah, want to cut the beginning and end off this chiastic process. [5])

History as architecture

The difference between the Abrahamic social model and the Christian one is the difference between the Bronze Altar (earthy – sacrifice of blood) and the Incense Altar (heavenly: elders – sacrifice of praise). It, like Adam’s prophecy, is the move “from silence to song” which we see prefigured in the breaking up of the Mosaic Tabernacle and its reconstruction as the Tabernacle of David.

Between these two altars is the Laver, water contained in bronze, a purifying “lake of fire.” All this leads to my point, which concerns the definition of what a Christian is in the light of the architecture of the Scriptures. If baptism defines the Church as a “slightly upgraded” Abrahamic body, so that it includes infants, what did Pentecost achieve? Is the Church just a corpse washed? Or is there also an Ethical transformation, a new nature received as a gift and heralded by faithful confession?

If the Church is basically the same kind of body as Old Covenant Israel, then Pentecost did nothing. Membership of the “body” begins with faithfulness to a moral code rather than with the indwelling of a moral life, the Spirit of God. Paedobaptism makes nonsense of the architecture inherent in every passage, at every level, of the Bible.

If we follow the order intended in Eden, the gift of the Holy Ghost can only be received by those who have taken the first step of obedience, the one upon which Adam stumbled. This is exactly what we see in Jesus’ baptism. The Father’s pleasure was due to His prior obedience. He was certainly blameless before then, as Adam’s children would have been, but the actual gift of “representing God to others” is for those who truly image God and are subsequently given the authority of God.

In the Old Testament, we see the Spirit “coming upon” certain people to gift them for service, but never an “indwelling” of their flesh. The only indwelt house was the one which was truly clean, the Tabernacle, beginning with its foundation in the sacrifices of Abraham for the Land of Canaan [6]. Not only was the Law external but lawful cleanliness was external. Jesus was the first clean human, and the first permanently clean house. Israel, on the whole, fixated with the externals based upon circumcision, a Social divide, rejected Him, blaspheming the Spirit, and she was filled with demons instead.

To claim that New Covenant conversion and baptism does not follow the same pattern found in every other “forming and filling” process found in the Bible is to ride roughshod over the ways of God. Fire and water, baptism and the Spirit, are for mediators between heaven and earth, for the elders, prophets, witnesses, musicians who are not only welcome in God’s court, but welcome the nations (including infants) into God’s court that they may minister to them.

So when you are tempted to baptize an infant, it is the flesh lusting against the Spirit. It the claiming of a spiritual inheritance through fleshly, unethical means: prophesying “peace” when there is no peace. The New Covenant is about those who are indwelt by God, not those who “set apart” and cut the flesh in mere anticipation, as did the Jews.

Those who maintained an allegiance to the first Pentecost over the second, and held onto an an obsolete genealogical inheritance from an earthly father, also rejected peace with God and true sonship. Because they were unwilling to be a blessing to all nations, the other promises, the open Land and the open womb, were taken away (Matthew 13:12). Contrary to the delusions of paedobaptists, the New Covenant is not about a pregnant Woman but a resurrected, ascended, prophetic Man.

While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

What peace there is, is not fundamentally Social. It is fundamentally ethical, spiritual. It is announced, by the Gospel, from God in heaven to the ears of our children on earth from our own clean lips as baptized mediators, those who are hybrids of heaven and earth, New Covenant “angels.” [7] All the Lord’s people are now prophets, as Moses desired. The true Church is not only visible and tangible, it is audible. It is not only formed but filled and prophesying the future. The Scriptures never confuse or conflate the speakers with the hearers, and neither must we. Paedobaptism is the carnal expression of carnal thinking, confusing bone and flesh with witness, protology with eschatology, Delegation with Vindication.

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:8-9)

We must not be like those who confused their Physical, Social circumcision with the Ethical circumcision, the repentance required by God.

They have healed the wound of my people lightly,
saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.
(Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11)

Art: Bryan Ahn, Sermon on the Mount
_____________________________
[1] See Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key for the reasons behind this architectural arrangement of the Ten Words. See also No Common Ground for their systematic (architectural) reversal by the secular state.
[2] See Cosmic Language.
[3] See The Ethics of the New Testament.
[4] See Images of God.
[5] See Covenant Creationism.
[6] See A Man of Beasts.
[7] See Shekinah People.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”
(Genesis 9:6)

James Jordan’s contribution to the study of any particular book of the Bible is invaluable, but the most important is very likely his work on Genesis. Because spineless modern theologians are unwilling to stand for its complete veracity, and yet very willing to jettison basic logic, they often miss the significance of its early chapters for the rest of the Bible and of history.

The themes of the early chapters of Genesis are brief and tightly bundled, and all subsequent Scripture unpacks them in greater and greater ways. When the issue of capital punishment is brought up, the Church rightly looks first to the New Testament, then to the Old, but rarely gets as far as Genesis. To answer the question from the Bible, one must first ask what a human is, what death is, and what a sword is. The problem for most Christians who take their theological lead from western culture rather than God is that the humans, the death and the sword in Genesis 3 are not historical events but ideological symbols.

In a recent online discussion with some atheists, I mentioned that my biblical worldview determined my answers to some crucial questions. If one believes the Bible, then one believes that the killing of unborn infants and of old people is wrong, but the killing of animals for food and of murderers to atone for their crime is right. Of course, there was the usual response of “the sanctimony of hell.” The response to my view on capital punishment? “How can you reconcile such a view with your beliefs?”

It amazes me how secularists think their moral code is the obvious conclusion to come to. I’d call it abject stupidity but it’s the result of years of evil in universities and legislative bodies. For our youth, it is the darkness of intellectual slavery. We are now at the point where good is evil and evil is good. Subsidize sin at home and abroad with public money, and ridicule or demonize our best and most faithful citizens. Pander to murderers and hack the unborn to pieces. And enforce this demonic “moral code” on society through unjust laws, manipulation, deceit, fraud, intimidation and eloquent speeches.

Jordan observes that Noah was the first man to be given the authority to kill another man. Moderns see this as an isolated fact (well, an isolated mythical fact), but it is a fact that is part of a process. The Testing of Adam was designed to bring him to the point of judicial maturity. He was given the Law not merely that he might not be a lawbreaker, but that he might become the Law, and execute lawbreakers. Who was the lawbreaker? The serpent, who intended to use the Law to bring about the deaths of Adam and his wife. As Jesus said, “He was a murderer from the beginning.”

Adam was to judge the serpent, perhaps to crush its head. He would have brought death into the world through his faith and righteousness, rather than through his faithless unrighteousness. This judgment and death were part of God’s plan. Adam was to judge between ethical light and ethical darkness, and mortify sin in his own members and those of his household by dismembering the serpent. (The Lord does take off its legs in a limited way, just as the curses upon Adam are limited.)

So, instead of going boldly from the Garden with flaming sword in hand as God’s representative, Adam was cast out of the Garden, and kept out by the sword. As we have discussed elsewhere, he was under the sword in chapter 2 but intended to be over the sword in chapter 3 as a minister of God, with the heavenly government of the angels upon his shoulders. We see the same thing in Israel, where the new nation is under the angelic sword at Passover, but wielding the angelic sword upon Jericho. It is a process of judicial maturity. The process of Israel’s maturity was intended to lead to an entire state of self-governing people, an entire nation of judges, of elohim. Instead, we have the book of Judges, with only its twelve stars.

The murder of Abel by Cain led to the “ministry of murder” of Lamech, and then a world filled with violence. This is often assumed to be anarchy but it was more likely a kingdom without mercy, a barbarism-by-law. The same manipulation of the law as a weapon against the weak was evident in the Pharisees and Herods, and is alive and well today. The curse of death was always intended to be transferred from the hand of the angels to the hands of men, but faithful, merciful men — men like Noah, the first judge, the first true “image of God.”

All saints have been under the sword in Christ. Our hearts are circumcised, and we have been slain and resurrected ethically in Him. We are to judge rightly in all our dealings because we will one day judge angels, as Adam was supposed to, and our better Adam did. In the Church, it is excommunication ministered with mercy, that serpents might be crushed. In the State, it is execution administered with mercy, that serpents might not gain members and become dragons. [1]

We also mortify the sin in our members that God might mortify sin in the hearts of others. The Word of God in our mouths is a sword that brings life to some and death to others. But there is another death in the hand of every saint, one that we fail to identify as a weapon, and that is our own martyrdom, the witness of Abel. This too is a sword to be wielded.

As the canker devours western culture, we will be called upon to take a stand. Real pressure is mounting not on the issue of same sex marriage but on the right of the Church to speak against it and reject it, discerning between light and darkness. The saints have a weapon that the opposition does not even suspect, and that is the willingness to make this “a hill to die on.” Communism was a real threat because its true believers were often willing to die for their cause. This is not the case with same sex marriage. The persecution of our society’s best citizens has already begun but the fight will not be long. Our opponents are not willing to die for their cause. They hide behind twisted legislation, as did the Pharisees and all their children throughout Church history.

The curse of death is ours to use as a weapon, just as Jesus did. When a dragon dismembers the Church, the Church multiplies its members. Jesus’ death means martyrdom is the pruning of a fruitful tree. This is Satan’s worst nightmare.

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” (Genesis 50:20)

The willingness of saints to suffer and die always brings the sword of the cherubim down upon God’s enemies and divides them, then the fire of the seraphim upon them to consume them. [2] It is the ministry of the two angels at the gate. But under the New Covenant there is a third element. As the body of Christ, with the testimony of the apostles, this “sacrifice” is now achieved through the government of heavenly men upon earth: cherubim (knife) and seraphim (fire) in the hand of the elohim.

_____________________________________
[1] See Serpents and Dragons.
[2] See Snakes and Chains. A government that promised to pass legislation for same sex marriage in Australia has been divided and consumed… for now.

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

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

Join now for a year for $15!

“And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” (Genesis 6:6)

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:36-37)

The relationship between the Father and the Son is an eternal to-and-fro. It is this primary “chiasm,” a “there-and-back-again,” a forming and a filling, which gave shape to the Creation Week and every facet of the Word of God and of human life.

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!

“Jacob didn’t steal the future. He rescued it from a Man who put food first and whose eyes were not yet opened.”

James Jordan has done the Church a great service by rehabilitating the reputations of Noah the drunk, Abraham the liar, Jacob the swindler and Moses the murderer. He has shown us that the context of these so-called sins and crimes mean that they are nothing of the sort. [1] By this, I don’t mean “cultural context” but Covenant context. The reason these great men of God (and their wonderful women) get such a bad rap is because their stories are treated like a bunch of separate things that occurred, from which we must draw obvious and disconnected morals, rather than a single narrative begun in Genesis 1.

Matthew Mason recently wrote about Jacob’s being, not a quiet man, but a blameless man. [2] This puts him in the company of Noah, Abraham, Job, and other “sacrificial” men, men to whom God entrusted the future of His Covenant. The failure by translators to recognize the ongoing theme of blamelessness has meant that Jacob is seen as sneaky and perhaps a little effeminate. He is a mother’s boy who gets his way through deceit. In fact, Jacob was a man who outsmarted the serpent at every turn with the wisdom of God. He was “wise as a serpent” but “harmless as a dove.” Esau, who rolled the sins of Adam (gave up his birthright for food), Cain (desired to murder his priestly brother) and the sons of Seth (married idolatrous women) into one single life, got his animals around the wrong way. Worse, his blind father was willing to hand the future of the Covenant, and therefore the world, over to this entirely “natural” man.

In the account of Jacob and Esau, there’s also a very strong “architectural” undercurrent as well, and it has to do with the Tabernacle. Esau is the Red Man outside the tent (the bloody Bronze Altar, symbolizing the Land). Esau smells like the field. He is of the earth, earthy. He is a hunter, a man of blood (“Cain” means “spear”), and cares nothing for the future. Jacob listens to his mother, who isn’t a deceived Eve. She understands that Isaac’s blindness is more than simply natural. Jacob is the Bridal Man inside the tent, the Incense Altar. Like Adam, he is clothed in animal skin to “deceive the curse.” It is a miniature Day of Atonement, goats and all, and the blessing of Isaac is not squandered as it would have been. Like Adam, Jacob was a man with the Bride inside.

The Old Testament gives us quite a few “bridal” men, that is, Adams who have an Eve inside ready for God to construct in history. David is one (music is bridal). I believe Jacob is another. He is the one who ascends as a Covenant sacrifice. His serpentine wisdom is also “bridal,” an eye for eye judgment upon the various serpents he encounters as he is qualified by God. Both brothers ended up with two wives (like Lamech) but only one brother concerned himself with God. Jacob didn’t steal the future. He rescued it from a Man who put food first and whose eyes were not yet opened.

______________________________________
[1] Jordan’s Primeval Saints is a good place to start.
[2] Matthew Mason, Jacob was a ___________ Man.