“Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

James Jordan has observed that Abraham’s “calling on the name of the Lord” was in fact evangelical proclamation of his faith. Abraham’s witness to the Canaanites was something for which they would be held accountable when Israel returned to claim the land. Chris Wooldridge sees this “vocal allegiance” as the key to understanding the meaning of the washing away of sins in the New Testament. Seen in the context of the last days of the Old Covenant, this was not baptismal regeneration but a public identification by the Jewish worshiper with the final sacrificial lamb (Leviticus 1:1-9).

Chris writes:

What does the book of Acts mean when it speaks of Baptism as the means by which sins are “forgiven” (Acts 2:38) or “washed away” (Acts 22:16). What does this mean and how do we reconcile it with the fact that we are justified by faith alone? When confronted with passages like this, there is often a tendency amongst evangelicals to overlook or avoid the obvious connections being drawn. But this is not the answer. In order to understand a passage like this, we need to consider its Covenant context.

Acts 2 records a sermon given by the Apostle Peter to a Jewish audience who were gathered together for the feast of Pentecost. The sermon begins by warning of a coming judgement. Peter, quoting from the book of Joel, proclaims:

And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. (Acts 2:19-20).

The first century Jewish audience, steeped in the Old Testament, would easily have understood the language of cosmic upheaval to be referring to a national judgment (e.g. Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7), with the sun and moon representing the rulers of nations.

But this was not to be a judgment of any old nation. No, this judgement was a curse meted out against Israel for her rebellion against God. Peter made it clear that Jesus was a righteous prophet like no other, “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (2:22). And how did Israel respond? By handing Jesus over to be crucified (Acts 2:23, 36). And now, this very same Jesus had been raised from the dead and set up as God’s judge and right-hand man.

No wonder the men were “cut to the heart” (2:27). They knew what happened when Israel disobeyed God and killed His righteous prophets. As Deuteronomy 28 made clear, when the people disobeyed God, the covenant curses were to be poured out upon them: famine, foreign invasion, exile and death.

It is in this context that we discover the reference to the “forgiveness of sins.” The “sins” in question are specifically transgressions against the Law of Moses and the “forgiveness” in question entailed a release from the consequences of those transgressions. For the Jew, Baptism was a public identification with Christ which washed away sin in a way no Levitical washing or atonement could. It declared openly a submission to a higher priest than the one in the Temple and an allegiance to a higher king than the one in Jerusalem. This is why it was performed “in the name of Jesus Christ.”¹Other New Testament passages, such as Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27, also speak of Baptism as a public identification with Christ.

For any Jew, quietly apologising for what they had done was never sufficient. A public rite was required. Now that rite was an act which made one an ally with the exalted Christ in order to be saved from the final curses of the Law. In forty years’ time, those Jews who wanted to affirm Christ without publicly identifying with him (and therefore against his enemies) were trapped in the city of Jerusalem when the armies of Titus Vespasian besieged the city.

Acts 22:16 is written in a similar context. Paul had unjustly murdered and imprisoned many Christians (Acts 9:1-2), but upon being confronted by the risen Christ he immediately realised his wrongdoing. For him to quietly return to being a Pharisee was impossible. He needed to publicly identify with Christ and with the Church which he had persecuted, in order to be saved from the wrath to come. This was the meaning of his Baptism.

So what does Baptism mean for us today, since we have no “Mosaic” curses hanging over us? 1 Peter 3 tells us that Baptism means than when others revile and slander us for our faith (3:9, 3:14), we can stand firm and identify with Christ (3:15-16). We know that God will judge the wicked and vindicate his people in history, if we are patient. Baptism assures us that, though the nations rage against Christ, he will have the final word. Baptism is not like Old Covenant rites which simply “put away the uncleanness of the flesh.” It is the legal “testimony of a good conscience before God” (3:21), an act which shows that we are not ashamed of Him, that He might not be ashamed of us.

Christian, remember what you declared at your Baptism.

There are no “Abrahamic” promises concerning offspring — or real estate — for New Covenant believers.

Like the dogma of evolution, the doctrine of paedobaptism is not supported by indisputable evidence. Rather, the data must be interpreted through the lens of a pre-existing framework. The paedobaptistic lens is, however, a biblical one, being Abrahamic, and it comes in extremely handy when used in the right way. It deals with the few texts which paedobaptists rely on for proof, showing that they are not establishing a revised Abrahamic tent, but bringing the old one to an end.

The text I deal with here is Peter’s mention of the Jews, their children, and those afar off, in Acts 2. The idea that the phrase “you and your children” has anything at all to do with Christians is ruled out by the context. The audience was the “men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” (2:14), “Men of Israel” (2:22), “brothers” (2:29), and “all the house of Israel” (2:36). Peter, who famously quotes Joel, was speaking to Jews about their accountability to the Covenant made with Abraham. But that Covenant was drawing to an end.

However, this does not explain why Peter mentions three groups of people, “you, your children and those afar off” (2:39). A clue to part of the answer is found in the preceding verses. Peter concludes his speech and the Jewish men respond:

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

The men are afraid because they have realised their blood guilt, not only of a brother like Abel but of the very Seed promised in Genesis 3, a promise later ratified in Abraham. Worse, these were likely some of the same people who, after Pilate washed his hands of the execution of Jesus, declared their conviction of his guilt by taking any liability for the shedding of innocent blood upon themselves.

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:24-25).

Among Orthodox Jews today, offspring is still of prime importance. A proselyte cannot convert to Judaism without a commitment to marriage and fatherhood. Jesus was cut off without any offspring, and these men, knowing the Old Testament, realised that they, too, were liable to being cut off without any “Abrahamic” inheritance.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. (Isaiah 53:8)

They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. The man who is the most tender and refined among you will begrudge food to his brother, to the wife he embraces, and to the last of the children whom he has left, so that he will not give to any of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because he has nothing else left, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in all your towns. (Deuteronomy 28:52-55)

The curses in Deuteronomy 28 did indeed fall upon Israel one generation after Peter’s proclamation, upon these men and their children, the children whom Christ told the women weeping for Him to weep for instead. The final generation of the children of Abraham according to the flesh was either destroyed or sold into slavery, carried back to Egypt in ships as Moses predicted (Deuteronomy 28:68).

The interesting thing is that these men and their children, those who believed, could be delivered from this terrible judgment upon Israel by putting themselves under the blood of Christ in a different way. In circumcision, in the blood sprinkling at Sinai, and in the Levitical rites, His blood had always been upon them, for blessing or for cursing.

And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words. (Exodus 24:6-8)

But now in Christ, Abraham had obtained a heavenly country, so an earthly Abrahamic inheritance, both the fruit of the Land and of the womb, became redundant. This is why the Jewish Christians, unlike Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:6-9), sold their lands (Acts 4:34-35).

So, there is really no doubt about who these children were. But the identity of “those far off” is more difficult to discern. Are they the Jews and Jewish proselytes scattered across the Roman empire, or is Peter referring to Gentiles? The Abrahamic Covenant promised an earthly inheritance of not only Land and womb (narrowing the curse of barrenness upon Adam and Eve to Abram and Sarai that it might be borne and resolved) but also promised that all the families of the “earth” (literally, ’adamah, the ground, and thus all mankind) would be blessed.

Not only was the promise of the Spirit for the Jews, but also the Gentiles, which later events in Acts make plain. Not only Jews but “those far off,” both Jews and Gentiles, received the Spirit of God. Paul uses similar language concerning Gentiles in Ephesians 2, where Jew and Gentile are united in a new household of faith. The Ephesian Christians were no longer “strangers” who could attend only certain festivals, but heirs along with believing Jews.

And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians 2:17-18)

Paedobaptists assume that this language means Peter should really have said, in Acts 2:39:

For the promise is for you
and for your children
and for all who are far off,
and for their children,
everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

The problem is that this is not what Peter says, and to conveniently assume that this is what he meant is to ride roughshod over the entire Abrahamic Covenant, the one which is supposed to provide all that imaginary support for the practice of paedobaptism.

Not only is Peter’s audience different from that of Paul, Paul makes no mention whatsoever of children as part of the promises of the New Covenant. Certainly, he instructs the saints concerning parenting, and marriage, and even instructs the children, but there is no “promised seed.” This is because, after the flood, where all flesh was “cut off,” all the cutting off was done in the microcosm of Israel for the sake of the life of the world. The children in Acts 2 are mentioned because all of the Jewish rites, and indeed the Temple, were still in place. The children are mentioned because they were still under the curses of Moses if their parents disobeyed the Lord.

If the Jews would not be “brought near” in Christ (our “near bringing” or sacrifice), they would be brought near for destruction. If they would not celebrate “Ingathering” but instead rejoice as rebels in a Passover already made redundant by Christ and His cup, they would be gathered as food on the table for the Roman eagles.

All of the Jews who rejected Christ, and their children, and indeed all of the Jews and Jewish proselytes (whom Jesus called “twice children of hell”) from across the empire were trapped in Jerusalem by Titus, whose clever strategy had been to wait until Passover to besiege the city. If the identity of “those far off” in Acts 2 is indeed Jewish, these are the people whom Peter was referring to, those who were either still under the Law, or who had placed themselves under it voluntarily. I believe this is the most likely solution, given the context. But those curses were finished in AD70.

However, even if Peter is referring to Gentiles, the architecture of this favourite proof text of paedobaptists betrays them. It not only follows the Covenant-literary structure, hinting at the Ten Words, working from above, to beside, to below, it is actually a textual map of the progress of the Gospel, by the Spirit, from Jerusalem into all the empire before AD70. The shape of the verse itself defines both the temporal and geographical boundaries of its scope. So, whether “those far off” are Jews or Gentiles, either way, the reach of Acts 2:39 ended with the abolition of the oikoumene.¹The oikoumene was the “household” of the empires established by God in the book of Daniel. The destruction of the Herodian Land beast and the Neronic Sea beast in the Revelation ended not only the division between Jew and Gentile but the Covenantal authority of these institutions. See James B. Jordan, The Handwriting On The Wall, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, or search this blog for the tag oikoumene.

TRANSCENDENCE

HIERARCHY

ETHICS

OATH/SANCTIONS

SUCCESSION

The architecture of the verse puts a three-level house at both altars, the microcosmic one (Jerusalem) and the Jews (or believing Gentiles) throughout the  oikoumene, neither of which exist any longer. The fulfilment of the Feast of Booths, also known as Ingathering, was predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24:31, and likely occurred just before the siege of Jerusalem.²See Sin City – 3.

In the Garden of Eden, the Covenant “Oath” was the failed confession of Adam, his unwillingness to submit to the authority of heaven, and the Covenant “Sanctions” was the limited curse of barrenness upon the fruit of the Land and womb. This is the difference between baptism (oath), and circumcision (sanctions). The testimony of Jesus is the oath upon the lips of the faithful, and in Him there are no Mosaic Sanctions upon our fruitfulness. This is why there are no “Abrahamic” promises concerning offspring — or real estate — for New Covenant believers. There are certainly correspondences, but they transcend the originals. We are called to give up our families and possessions for the sake of the Gospel, yet are told we will receive siblings, sons, houses and lands in this life the way Jesus did (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:28-30), by adoption, since one day we shall possess them all. Land and offspring were closely related in Abraham’s earthly inheritance, but the New Covenant is about a heavenly country, and about “sons of God,” those who believe the Word as Abraham did, and become the friends, the confidants, of God (Isaiah 41:8; John 15:15; James 2:23).

“Sanctions corresponds to the Day of Atonement. One goat goes to heaven (as fragrant smoke) and the other goes to hell, carrying the sins of the people into the wilderness, to be eaten by the birds and beasts. The difference here is that we have not two goats, but two High Priests…”

Matthew 26-27: SANCTIONS

The fourth major cycle moves us from the Covenant Ethics to the Covenant Sanctions. This concerns the pouring out of blessings and curses for obedience or disobedience to the Covenant, and the cleansing of the Land from the guilt of sin and the ensuing barrenness.

Aligning this pattern with its corrupted prototype in Eden, the “war of words” between Adam (Jesus) and the serpent (the Jewish rulers) is over, and it is time for some face to face combat, and a reckoning.

The Covenant “macrostructure” is as follows (click the link for the previous blog posts):

Sanctions corresponds to the Day of Atonement. One goat goes to heaven (as fragrant smoke) and the other goes to hell, carrying the sins of the people into the wilderness, to be eaten by the birds and beasts. The difference here is that we have not two goats, but two High Priests: Caiaphas and Jesus. Which one would truly carry the curse of the sins of the people? The Herodian priesthood believed they were the true mediators, thus designating Jesus as the second goat. Of course, the opposite was true. In this case, the blessed earthly rulers would be cursed and the cursed heavenly ruler would be blessed.

The Sanctions section has two parts, and the events put an interesting spin on the Day of Atonement. This should not surprise us, since we have a mercurial God who loves to confound the wise, and thus never fulfills His prophecies in quite the way we expected.

On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest made two approaches to the Most Holy, offering the blood of a bull for the covering of the sins of the priesthood, including himself, and then the blood of the first goat for the covering of the sins of the people. Priesthood and kingdom are the “head and body,” a pattern which we see in the Ascension Offering in Leviticus 1. [1] So, how does the Spirit spin this in Matthew? The first cycle concerns Jesus in the hands of the Jews (representatives of one nation, Israel as the priestly head); the second concerns Jesus in the hands of the Gentiles (representatives of all nations, the Gentiles as the stately body). Land and Sea would both condemn the incarnate God.

Matthew 26 – FIRST APPROACH: Jesus in the Hands of the Jews

Because Matthew’s Sanctions is a shorter section, we can analyze it in more detail.

The correspondence of the event to the matrix pattern is fairly straightforward. But the matrix is only one strand of a woven cord. When we align the events with the other strands, the significance of each event as a fulfillment of the Old Covenant should make the saint weep.

Creation: The Plot/Jesus Anointed

These two accounts each follow the matrix, but together give the first step a head and a body. Moreover, both accounts also give us a head and a body. So we have the totus Christus working at three levels:

Head: Jesus speaking about Passover to the disciples
Body: The Chief Priests and the Elders gather in the palace of the High Priest

then, combining these two as the head,

Head: The Plot to Kill Jesus
Body: Jesus’ head and body anointed at Bethany (“House of God”)

The anointing at Bethany follows the Covenant pattern, with Jesus’ head anointed at Transcendence, the disciples murmuring at Hierarchy, Jesus defending the Woman (as Adam and Eve) at Ethics, Jesus’ body anointed at Sanctions, and the woman honored at Succession. Since these two stories together form the “Sabbath” of the greater structure, the irony is that while Jesus is reclining in “the House of God,” the High Priest and his minions are not only working, they are plotting a murder.

The structure of each account is sublime literary architecture. The second is outlined above, so I will only arrange the first here:

Take a moment to look at the symmetry here. Jesus predicts the plot at Ascension (opening the future, like Joseph and Daniel) and it is described in the matching stanza at Maturity. At the center of Ascension is the Son of Adam, and at the center of Maturity is the seed of the serpent (trickery). You might also notice that the plot to arrest Jesus appears at step 5, which is exactly where it occurs in the greater structure of Matthew 26. The cycle finishes with the rulers attempting to shelter themselves (Booths).

Division: Judas Bought/Jesus Sold/The Passover

The second step also has two parts. Judas’ meeting with the chief priests highlights the “Veil” theme. Division also concerns circumcision and Passover, so we have an illicit union to cut off the Lamb. Jesus’ pronouncement of “woe” upon Judas corresponds to His earlier woes pronounced upon all of Judah. Like Egypt, the Bronze Altar-Land of Israel was hungry for the blood of her murderous rulers. Jesus’ words, “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born,” are likely included to highlight the “firstborn” slain at Passover. This time, Jesus would not escape as He did as an infant.

Ascension: A New Covenant/the Disciples Scattered

At the Bronze Altar step, Jesus institutes a new feast. Here, He is “opening the scroll” and it is His own body, the Word incarnate. As the Land was formed and filled on Day 3, so Jesus, the true Isaac, the true Israel, and the true Land, is de-formed and de-filled. The bread is the old altar broken in two (1 Kings 13:5) just as Israel itself would be divided by the Gospel, cut up like a sacrifice and placed upon the altar. Since we are at the Ascension step, it is worth mentioning that at this step Moses received the Ten Words, written with the finger of God. God incarnate now uses ten fingers to break this “tablet” of bread in two. The typology here is both mind boggling and heart breaking.

The Table highlights the sacrificial lamb, and Jesus predicts the scattering of the flock (again, we have a correspondence between the prediction/promise at Ascension and the fulfillment at Maturity, the Giving and Receiving of the Law). The disciples identify themselves with the Lamb.

Testing: Jesus Prays in Gethsemane

The walk through the Tabernacle as a new Creation continues as we reach the Lampstand. The disciples are called to be “governing lights,” or watchmen, while Jesus prays in Gethsemane. The Lampstand was fuelled with holy olive oil, and Gethsemane is the place where olives were crushed for their oil. The Testing theme is highlighted with the cup, the jealous inspection (Numbers 5). The disciples fail to watch, so Jesus twice commands them to “see.” Their eyes are opened.

Maturity: Soldiers Arrest Jesus, Scatter the Disciples

The Maturity symbols here are many. Firstly, Joseph’s brothers betrayed him at this point in his first cycle. [2] We have swords and clubs and legions of angels mentioned, as well as a nod to the prophets. The high priest’s servant’s ear is of course significant, since the human body relates to the Tabernacle. Since the sword is usually in the right hand, it was likely his left ear, corresponding to the Table. The allusion is also to the servant whose ear was bored through to ratify his desire to remain in the service of his master’s house (Exodus 21:6). And Jesus would have healed it with His right hand. Jesus does not free slaves through revolution. It only leads to worse bondage. His reference to the swords of angels is also interesting, being another reference to Passover.

Jesus Before Caiaphas and the Council

Finally, we have the face off between the two high priests, one an image of Jesus by office, and Jesus an image of God by nature. The structure tells us two things: firstly, it alludes to Adam’s trial before God (“He deserves death,” v. 66) and secondly it alludes to the recompense for faithfulness to the Covenant Oath. Of course, Jesus has been entirely faithful to His oath, but in dying He would become a fulfilled oath for all those who believe.

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14)

At step 6 within this step six cycle, the High Priest tears his robes (which was illegal for the High Priest alone), which corresponds to the open Veil at Atonement, the tearing of the Veil at the crucifixion, and the destruction of the Temple in the first century pattern. Even the silence of Jesus was a sword that would cut Israel in two.

Peter Denies Jesus

At Glorification/Booths/Succession, Matthew places Peter’s denial of Jesus. This step is about the outflow of step 6, Atonement, for the sake of the nations. Instead, Peter invokes a self-maledictory oath, legally cutting himself off from the shelter of Jesus, which looks like death but is life. The cry of the rooster is the only true witness to the coming dawn. Peter pictures unbelieving Israel, and his outflow is bitter tears.

Matthew 26 – SECOND APPROACH: Jesus in the Hands of the Gentiles

The second cycle follows the same pattern, but the action has escalated to a greater court. Since the Jews were prohibited from executing criminals without reference to Roman law, Jesus could only be murdered via a Jew-Gentile conspiracy.

Morning comes as a new Creation, and Jesus is bound as a sacrifice.

Judas again appears at Division, and the Field of Blood is a reference to the child sacrifices of Israel’s kings. [2]

At Ascension, Jesus is the silent Firstfruits Lamb, the “standing sacrifice.” The Revelation follows the same structure. Here, He gives no answer. The “opening” of His body would lead to a corporate mouth, the apostolic testimony. The indwelling Spirit would cure Peter’s fear and make him a bold witness.

At step 3 of the Testing cycle, we have the ruler and his wife, who receives a troubling dream, as Gentile rulers are wont to do when God’s man is faithful in a Gentile court. At the Atonement/Sanctions/Oath step (the Laver), Pilate washes his hands of the matter, while the Jews take full responsibility for Jesus’ death. This corresponds to the choice they were being given in the Gospel: be cut off with the Circumcision, or be cleansed and freed in Baptism.

At Maturity, we have the symbol of the robe of office, and the crown of thorns, which pictures for us the fruit of Israel according to the flesh: cursed thorns and thistles awaiting the fire.

Analysis of the Conquest/Atonement step of this chapter reveals Matthew’s reason for mentioning the things he does. The “anointed head” at Creation is the Place of the Skull. Jesus’ garments are divided at Division, matching the tearing of the Temple Veil at Conquest. The promise of a Temple rebuilt “in three days” appears at Ascension. Instead of the Lampstand, we have the midday darkness at Testing. And at Maturity, we have the true fruit of the Land, resurrected holy ones, who testify in the city. Conquest/Sanctions also contains the “oath” of the centurion concerning the true identity of Jesus. Matthew is a literary marvel.

The Sanctions section finishes with another Jew-Gentile two-part cycle, Jesus “priestly” burial, and His Gentile guards, hired by the murderous Jews. The “seal” on the tomb is a Day 6 symbol, the legal pronouncement upon all those captive to death. [4] But the Law was now satisfied, and all the prisoners were legally free.

Finally, for further meditation, it might help to align these two cycles, Jew and Gentile, visually:

If you’ve been around here for a while, you might understand the correspondence between this arrangement and the Ten Words, which is even more food for thought.

Having been condemned at the hand of the Jews, and also at the hand of the Romans, qualified Jesus as a Priest-King, after the order of Melchizedek. He was not bloodied on the right ear, thumb and toe only, but on both sides, ending the Circumcision, and making of the two “Abrahamic” halves one New Adam.

_____________________________________
[1] Of course, this two-fold approach is repeated “fractally” between AD30 (the ascension of Christ) and AD70 (the first resurrection). See One Taken, One Left Behind. Also see James Jordan’s fascinating comments concerning the “Day of Atonement” structure of Daniel 7 in his commentary, The Handwriting On The Wall.
[2] See Dogs and Pigs.
[3] See The Field of Blood.
[4] The “seal” upon Daniel in the lion’s den is step 6 (Sanctions) in the first cycle of the book. See Daniel’s Long Shadow.

How does Peter see the apocalyptic imagery of Joel in the events of Acts 2?

The first step is to take note of the context of Joel’s prophecy. It is the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls. (Joel 2:32)

Even if we identify the context, it may sound to us as if Joel is still looking forward to the first century events at the end of his predictions. The unfortunate chapter break between 2 and 3 stops us reading further, but if we keep reading without a break, the beginning of chapter 3 makes it clear that Joel is still speaking about the restoration from exile. God would judge all the Canaanite nations, including Israel, who had behaved like a Canaanite. But only Israel would resurface from the “flood” of Babylonian control, while all the Canaanite powers remained scattered forever. And Israel would be vindicated across the world, from India to Ethiopia, in the events of the book of Esther (predicted in Ezekiel 38-39).

This means that the particular “day of judgment” had already passed by the time Peter quoted the prophet, so he is not quoting the prophecy to announce its soon fulfillment. He is, however, announcing a similar destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, with all that this entails.

The New Testament writers always quote the Old Testament “covenantally,” that is, the way God redeemed and avenged at such-and-such a time is now being repeated. A similar example is the reference in Hebrews to Jeremiah concerning “a new covenant.” In Jeremiah, the new covenant would re-unite Judah and Israel, north and south. By the first century, this was an event long fulfilled. The author of Hebrews is using the previous national “death-and-resurrection” to illustrate the inter-national one which was occurring in his day, that is, not a reunion of Israelite and Israelite into one natural body, but the reunion of Jew and Gentile into one spiritual body.

The second step is to take note of the meaning of the prophetic language. Blood and fire and smoke are potent images but together they speak of a process of transformation, the sacrificial rite. Blood is the natural body upon the altar. Fire transforms it into something new. Joel—and Peter—as prophets of God, are putting the Israel of their respective days on the altar. How is this possible?

These are things that take place on the “Land” (not the “earth”) because the Land throughout the Old Testament is a flat, four-cornered altar. The obedient offering of the firstfruits (such as Isaac) would allow the will of God to be done on earth as it was in heaven. It was an act of faithful gratitude which would allow God to pour out the rest of the harvest as a blessing to true Israel. For the unbelieving, an abundance of blessing would be a chance to fill up their sins and incur a greater judgment.

We see this on Mount Carmel, where Elijah’s holy sacrificial model of Israel (a twelve stone altar) calls down fire from heaven, and the entire mountain becomes a new Sinai, with the false priests slain and God vindicated. The Tabernacle was a model of Sinai, with the Bronze Altar as the raised earth, and the furnitures in the Holy Place signified the sacrificial blood (the Table), the fire (the Lampstand) and the fragrant savory smoke (the Incense Altar). The fragrant smoke was pleasing to God, a “legal witness” that the Law had been satisfied. Blood, fire and clouds of smoke make all Israel “the holy place.”

In the first century, the death of Christ was the offering of blood. Pentecost was the “holy fire” coming down from heaven, and the testimony of the apostles to an apostate Jerusalem and to the surrounding Gentiles was the savory smoke, after which came God’s blessings and curses upon the Jews for all time in AD70. In the Jewish war, as on Carmel, the liturgical model of Christian worship brought down the “days of vengeance.” Jerusalem herself was laid upon the altar, the entire Land covered in blood “up to the horses’ bridles.” Just as Israel was surrendered by God to Babylon due to her harlotries, idolatries, sorceries and abominations, so she would be left unprotected to be desolated by Rome, whom God would bring against her. At Pentecost, the glory of God did not fill the Temple but the faithful. As the faithful were gradually expelled from the Temple over the following decades, the presence of God was also expelled, which left it unprotected against invasion and plunder by Gentiles. The liturgical blood, fire and smoke of the New Covenant Israel resulted in literal blood, fire and smoke for old Israel.

The book of Revelation is strange to us because it is a sacrificial liturgy. It is the final sacrifice of the Old Testament: Israel herself. The believers ascended as smoke (the ascension offering in Leviticus 1, the true Isaacs, sons of Abraham by faith) and the unbelievers were swallowed by the Land, descending into the earthen Altar, as ashes, Adamic dust, like the false priests, the sons of Korah. The Altar was then split in two (symbolically under the feet of Christ) and the ashes poured out. All these allusions help us to understand what is going on. To refuse to understand the Bible on its own terms (with its constant sacrificial/liturgical models) is to refuse to take it as it was intended.

Finally, there are those who believe that the apocalyptic language in Peter’s quotation is still unfulfilled. They state that because Israel rejected the Spirit the full pouring out was postponed until “the last days” of Israel which are still future. Incredibly, these teachers overlook the destruction of Jerusalem as an important event in Covenant history. Not only this, but they fail to see that this is another death-and-resurrection of Israel, who emerges from the flames once again renewed, but this time as the Christian Church. There is no Israel besides the Church. So, how should we then understand the phrase “the last days” in Peter’s quotation? The New Testament documents are legal documents written by legal witnesses, giving testimony about a coming judgment. Following the pattern of the Old Testament prophets, they are preaching to cause a moral response in the audience of their day. So although we can apply their warnings in certain ways today, their warnings are obviously concerning the last days of the Old Covenant, not the last days of the New. The failure of most of evangelicalism to notice this is why the New Testament has little grip on reality in the lives of modern believers. The fulfillment of the warnings in the judgment of God, in Christ, is either overlooked or erased entirely from our understanding of the birth of the Church.

_________________________________________
ART: St Peter Preaching at Pentecost, sculpture by Christopher Slatoff.

The Stoning of Israel

I think it’s worth looking at the literary structure of this passage. Here’s a revised version of the sheet I handed out after the sermon.

As I’ve written before, modern readers (and commentators) only look at the content of the text, but the authors of Scripture also communicate to us through where they place that content within that text, i.e. how it is arranged.

Without any punctuation or text layout, all we have to go on is previous literary structures, all of which can be traced back to Genesis 1. Each phrase is “self effacing,” that is, it is symbolic, a type, pointing away from itself to something else as part of a process of redemption. By its “symbolic” or typological content, we can identify the structure of the text. (When brilliant theologians look at this theory and reject it, I must admit I feel like picking up rocks.)

Because of the complexity of the diagramming, I’ve uploaded the text as a PDF, which you can download here. But the commentary will remain here, so (if you have a wide enough screen) you can have both open at once and not have to scroll up and down.

1. We have seven stanzas, following the Bible matrix, which means that as a body of text, these stanzas will work through (a) a process of Creation or renewal, from forming to filling; (b) the “festal” process of agriculture, from planting to harvest; and (c) a process of Conquest (Dominion), from Egypt to Canaan.
2. Within these, each stanza works on the same pattern (“fractally”) which is where it gets interesting, because the authors of the Scriptures, and the authors of any good literature, often play with well-established structures (and our expectations) to make a point. They slay them (open the Word) and resurrect them (expound the Word) as something new, taking us from where we are to where they are, like all good preachers.
3. The first stanza is five-fold, following the Biblical Covenant structure. We can tell where this ends because the second stanza begins with “you also,” the Hierarchy.
   The first stanza begins with the source of their life, the Son of God. Notice where His rejection is placed in the text. Jesus was judged under the Law of Moses—at least according to the PR campaign of the Jewish leaders. As I mention in The Covenant Key, men cannot live without rules, so the best way to avoid obedience to the Laws of God is to replace them, and to then work on classifying actual obedience to God as an offensive hate crime.
   The words chosen and rejected occur many times in this passage. This is the Urim and Thummim process of the judgment of God, light and dark, night and day, the two goats of Atonement, the execution of the Covenant sanctions. This line stands in this stanza where the High Priest stood on the Day of Atonement, the true Adam able to stand face to face with God. This puts the word “precious” at Glorification, the finished product, a New Covenant for Israel. If we group the centre three stanzas together under “Ethics,” we see the five-fold Covenant structure of the first stanza played out in first century Israel as a new seven-fold Creation. The Law is split into three, recreating the structure of the Trinity administered by the Spirit in the people of God: Father – Spirit – Son here becomes Head (Son) – Spirit – Body.
4. Stanza 2 is seven-fold because the Law is opened in the people of God. Notice “built up” at Ascension and “offer up” at Maturity. Built up is the bloody bronze altar and “offer up” is the fragrant golden altar. The passage forms the house, then fills the house. We see the same thing in Peter’s ministry. At the house of the High Priest, he condemns himself by denying Jesus, who then “looks” at Him from above (the fiery eyes of the Lampstand-Law). This is the altar of death, a sentence carried out on the Land. But later, Peter sees Jesus by another fire, a fire by the Sea (Gentiles). This is the altar of resurrection, and Peter’s threefold Covenantal “no” is resurrected as a threefold Covenantal “yes” or Amen.
5. Notice that all the mentions of stone are in the first four stanzas. The passage itself calls the nation of Israel into the courtroom of God. She is presented with a new Law written on flesh, Jesus as the tablets of God. Like Moses, the Law of Moses in this passage doesn’t make it past Deuteronomy. In fact, it is “cut off” in the “midst of the week.” The house of unbelieving Israel became demonic after Pentecost. Perhaps the phrase “rock of offence” means a rock of transgression. In this stanza, Adam’s feet trip on Day 6, and there is judgment, not rest, on Day 7.
6. The sixth stanza matches the second. Stanza 2 is delegation, the oracles given to Israel. Stanza 6 is vindication, their fulfilment. The hearts of stone in 2 are now hearts of flesh, and the particular thread of the matrix that shines here is the festal one.
   We think that the difference between stone and flesh is only their hardness, but there is also the comparison between Lot’s wife and Abraham’s. She who had children became barren and she who was barren became fruitful. The New Israel is not a barren Land, and the Old Israel became the incestuous cave of Lot and his daughters, who manipulated nature to obtain a future, but only bred enemies of the Covenant. (They can most certainly be redeemed, as Ruth was.) The old Israel was not only stoned. She was a Land “sown with salt,” a mineralized miscarriage of justice (2 Kings 2:21).
   The Ten Commandments were good, but they could not have true children (paedobaptists, take note). In a sense, the Old Covenant itself, the Succession of Moses, stones without the Spirit of God, was a eunuch, and could not enter into the heavenly Tabernacle. But a eunuch with the Spirit of God could enter. Not only would he not enter to serve, but he would be enthroned at the feast. [1]
   It is fitting that the word “possession” is placed at Pentecost. It is followed by the fulfilment of the feasts in the apostolic ministry and the first resurrection. The firstfruits martyrs saw God face to face and now reign with Him.
7. The final stanza concerns the finished house. It is a shelter for the nations, the shelter that Israel was called to be, but could not truly be until the True Israel arrived.

Can you imagine the length of a Bible commentary that took literary structure into account?

[1] See New Covenant Virility.

Unfinished Business

6    For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

The first mention of a cornerstone is in Job 38. The Lord sees the Land as the foundation of His Temple. The entire structure reflects the Covenantal nature of the act of Creation.

Then the LORD (Transcendence)
…..answered Job (Hierarchy)
……….out of the whirlwind,
……….and said: (Ethics 1 – Law given)
……………“Who is this who darkens counsel
……………(Ethics 2 – Law opened)
……….By words without [wisdom]?
……….(Ethics 3 – Law received)
…..Now [gird] yourself like a man; (Sanctions – Adam)
I will question [, and instruct]. (Day of God)

Where were you (Creation – Genesis)
…..when I laid the foundations (Division – Exodus)
……….of the [Land]? (Ascension – Leviticus)
……………[Divulge] (Testing – Numbers)
……….if you have understanding. (Maturity – Deuteronomy)
…..Who determined its measurements? (Conquest/Joshua)
Surely you know! (Glorification – Wise Judges)

Or who stretched the line upon it? (Day 1 – Ark)
…..To what were its foundations fastened? (Day 2 – Veil)
……….Or who laid its cornerstone?” (Day 3 – Altar)
……………When the morning stars (Day 4 – Lamps)
……….sang together, (Day 5 – Incense)
…..And all the sons of God (Day 6 – Mediators)
shouted for joy? (Day 7 – Rest)

Notice the cornerstone is the third line of the third stanza. Jesus is the true Land upon which everything rests.

This cornerstone is not only precious but the “choice” stone of the quarry. The permanent house of God is made of cut stones, like Solomon’s Temple. This means it is not an Adamic house (like a bloody altar) but an Evian house, where the sacrifice is praise. It is not a house of Knife but of Fire. It is a house of music. The sound of the chisel will not be heard in it.

“And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel [or] any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.” 1 Kings 6:7

7    Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

Peter now quotes the second use of “cornerstone” in Scripture. We discussed that this stone was given to the Jews, who assessed it, and misclassified it. He was a precious stone, who required no cutting. But “men” has been replaced with “builders.” The reference is to the craftsmen of the Bible, like Aholiab and Bezalel, who could only successfully build the house of God according to the heavenly pattern if they were filled with the Spirit of God. It takes the Spirit to open our eyes to the quality of Jesus. He restores our sight, our judgment, and we recognise that He is righteous and we are sinners. Only by the Spirit can we be workmen who are not ashamed. [1]

8    and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”

The reference here is from Isaiah, and it is two-fold. There is a stone of stumbling and a rock that causes a fall.

Firstly, an altar is “raised up.” It has to do with the raising up of the Land, the Firstfruits and the Ascension Offering. These rites bring Man close to God. But instead of providing sanctuary, a covering for sin, an altar stone that raises the humble Man, it would bring proud Man down. The humble are exalted, but the proud are thrown down.

According to Isaiah 8, the source of Peter’s quote, this fall is due to a misplaced fear, a fear of men and their conspiracies instead of the fear of a holy God.

The LORD Almighty
is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread.

The passage refers to the Temple sanctuary, but makes a distinction between the man-made Temple and the true Temple, which is God Himself.

He will be a holy place;
for both Israel and Judah he will be
a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.
Many of them will stumble;
they will fall and be broken,
they will be snared and captured.”

Secondly, a stone that causes people to stumble is a stone on the ground. Adam is unable to stand. His heel is bruised and he limps like Jacob. But what is a rock that makes him fall? It may just be a bigger stone on the ground, but rocks were thrown by the ministers of God’s justice to atone for murder or adultery. The sound of a stoning was the sound of God’s chisel cutting an individual or family out of history. And the blood of the slain was atoned for by the blood of the slayer.

Perhaps the thought here is that the ground cursed by the unatoned sins of God’s people would bring about their fall, even if men failed to pick up stones and administer justice. God Himself can raise up stones to bring us down.

Israel often failed to administer such justice against the serpent and his offspring. When the Day of the Lord arrived, the “Day of Coverings,” God Himself turned up to administer the justice miscarried by unfaithful Adams. Men were suddenly face to face with the Lawgiver, and they actually called on the rocks and hills to cover them.

Those who stumble at God’s holy Law will fall under its curses, even when God’s ministers fail to carry out the Law. Of course, this Law has been slain and resurrected in Christ as the gospel, as Spirit-Law, yet curses remain, and they are eternal. But for those who believe, there is no further business, no further “trade” required. It is finished. There is still justice, but there is also justification.

Cut stones are holy. They are silent witnesses to the Law of God, whether they are the tablets of Moses or the Temple of Solomon, a reason for praise. But unfinished stones demand blood. They are the ground crying out as a witness against Cain.

Christ, as a stone cut out by God, was thrown at the feet of the edifice of the Gentile kingdoms and He brought them crashing down. He founded a fifth empire. His kingdom is growing into a great mountain, not a burning mountain like Sinai, but a bridal mountain like Zion. There are two mountains in Revelation: the burning mountain was thrown into the Sea. Jesus commanded His disciples to dismantle Moses by fulfilling Moses. God raised up children to Abraham from barren stones, [2] and the ministry of the apostles was both more life-giving, and more damning, to Israel than any stones raised up under Moses.

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Peter here refers to Paul’s words in Romans 6 concerning Herodian worship as a new Egypt, the Herods as Pharaohs. It was the unfaithful Jews who were destined to disobey the Law and be cursed–as high-handed sinners–that the blessing might come to the Gentiles. Israel’s destiny was always to sacrifice, to die as a nearbringing, for the life of the world. Since Abraham, as a substitute for the world, the altar of Israel was always the object of God’s wrath, that the nations might be the objects of His mercy. [3]

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden… What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

9    But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

This verse follows the Feasts of Israel. There is much talk about “replacement theology.” But did the Church replace Israel? No more than the Temple replaced the Tabernacle, or the butterfly replaces the caterpillar — or Christ crucified was replaced by the resurrected Saviour. The Church is one new man, a body called not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.

10    Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Peter now quotes Hosea, where God promises to restore Israel after the captivity. The condemned harlot would be redeemed and shown mercy. This supports the idea of transformation rather than replacement. Israel was slain under the Law and resurrected from Babylon, and the same process was happening in the first century.

John says that we are now the sons of God. Being a Jew was an office before God, in His holy court. That job has been transferred to the Church, the body of Christ. Anyone who thinks Jews are still God’s chosen people do not understand the Bible and how God works.

Israel was an unfaithful bride stoned to death — finished — under the perfect Law of the stony tablets of Moses. But she was also the daughter of a priest, whose remains, once stoned, were to be burnt with fire. This burning sounds hateful but it actually pictured a blessing, not a curse. It is Pentecostal. It pictured Spirit-filling and resurrection and ascension to God. The Herodian Temple became the altar of Baal. God slew the sorcerous, murderous Jezebel of Judaism and resurrected her in a new body — of Jews and Gentiles — as a holy Temple, a covering of fiery Pentecostal gemstones from the Land and shining pearls from the Sea.

Atonement by blood means justice is satisfied. Concerning the Law, the shedding of blood means business is finished. But with God, there is always a greater work to do. Business is not actually finished until the resurrection.

The final post will be an analysis of the structure of this passage.

________________________________
[1] See Unashamed Artisans.
[2] Yes, testicles are symbols of life-giving stones, hence the emphasis on their protection and rejection of eunuchs from the Old Covenant priesthood (Lev. 21:20; Deut. 23:1; 25:11-12). Priests had to be perfect offerings. Not only are there two stones in the Ark of the Covenant, there were “binary” stones in the ephod, the urim and thummim, black and white, X and Y, overshadowing Eve and deciding the future of the Land. See God’s G amble.
[3] Separating Israel from the nations as the focus of blessing and cursing avoided another “Creational” judgment like the flood. See World Stuff.

Cut and Uncut Stones

4    As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—

Peter’s use of the stone image should bring many Old Testament images to mind:

• the precious stones of Havilah, intended to be mined from the Land to glorify the sanctuary [1]
• the false stones of Babel (they had brick for stone)
• Jacob’s head on the altar stone, in a deep sleep
• Jacob’s raising of an altar stone in Bethel: “And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”
• Zipporah’s sharp stone of circumcision
• Moses enthroned on a stone at the defeat of Amalek
• Israel’s altars of stone (one stone for each tribe) at Sinai and Carmel
• The precious stones on the breastplate of the High Priest
• The tablets of stone carrying the ten words
• The stones of the “Levitical” house in the city filled with plague
• The stones of judgment, the ground itself as a witness executing transgressors outside the camp
• The black and white stones in the ephod

We have two types of stones: uncut stones (altar, judgment – the Law) and cut, or precious, stones (glory and riches – Grace).

It was forbidden to use worked stones to build holy altars.

“If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.” (Exodus 20:25)

These raw stones represent Adam, drawn “raw” from the Land, before he was cut and bloodied under the “raw Law” (stoicheia). Worked stones are Adams prepared to construct the “bridal” Temple. They are not decorative gemstones, but they are indeed precious.

The Jews (“men”) misjudged Jesus and rejected Him as a rough stone, when in fact He was precious. They looked on His outward appearance and found nothing to esteem. But He was already cut, a worked stone, a circumcised heart, the founding work on a Temple for the Spirit.

5    you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Jesus built a house for the Spirit, a “Mosaic Tabernacle” made of His disciples. He filled the house with fire at Pentecost, and it came alive. Once purified, it was ready to be decorated, robed as a bride.

Gemstones are also stones filled with fire — living stones — but they are not united by the mason. They are united on the body of the Bridegroom. These reflect the light of God, and so can enter into the tent, carried upon the High Priest. Adam was supposed to be robed in glory, not bloody skin.

The famous “gemstone” passage in Ezekiel 28 doesn’t refer to Satan. Nor does it refer precisely to the king of Tyre. It is prophetic sarcasm, aimed at the Edenic Sanctuary built by Solomon.

“You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.” Ezekiel 28:13

The precious materials for Solomon’s Temple were mined and carried from Tyre. The “king of Tyre” here was the corrupt High Priest, who had capitulated to the false gods of Tyre, reversing the influence of Solomon upon king Hiram. It was reverse evangelism, just as Satan promised a false glory to Adam and to Jesus if they would capitulate to him.

But we have a faithful High Priest, a stone not worked by lawless men but cut by the finger of a lawful God, an Adamic altar stone “cut out without hands,” and glorified with Evian gemstones, stones mined and cut from the Land of Israel — His glorious offspring. Unlike Adam, He has no need to cover Himself and hide.

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” (Hebrews 2:13) [2]

____________________________________
[1] See Worship as Commerce.
[2] See Pilgrim’s Egress for how this “corporate salvation” is overlooked in Bunyan’s allegory.

Few passages have caused as much discussion as the one concerning “the spirits in prison” in 1 Peter 3. It’s also one of the few texts where I found that not a single one of the explanations offered was satisfactory. Well, I’ve run the matrix over it, and I reckon I’ve solved it.

To understand the context of “the prison spirits,” we have to identify the structure which contains it within Peter’s letter. Or, to put it another way, to get his structural point, we have to see the entire structure.

SABBATH – PEACE
Unity among the brethren

Finally, all [of you be] of one mind, (Sabbath unity)
…..having compassion for one another; (Passover)
……….love as brothers, (at the Altar, Matthew 5:23-24)
……….[be] tenderhearted, courteous; (Law of Covenant love)
……………not returning evil for evil (Eye for eye)
……….or [insult] for [insult], (“Bridal response”)
…..but on the contrary blessing, (Sanctions)
…..knowing that you were called to this, (Mediators)
that you may inherit a blessing. (Succession)

DIVISION – A NEW HIERARCHY

For “He who would love life and see good days, (Transcendence) [1]
…..Let him refrain his tongue from evil, (Hierarchy – teachers)
……….And his lips from speaking deceit. (Ethics – serpent)
…..Let him turn away from evil and do good; (Sanctions – mercy)
Let him seek peace and pursue it. (Succession – Future Rest)

ASCENSION – THE BREAD-AND-WINE MAN

For the eyes of the LORD
…..[are] on the righteous, (The facebread man)
……….And His ears [are open] to their prayers;
…..But the face of the LORD [is] (Face to face)
against those who do evil.” (No Succession)

TESTING – LIVING THE ETHICS OF THE LAW

And who [is] he who will harm you
…..if you become followers of what is good?
……….But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake,
…..[you are] blessed. (Positive Sanction)
“And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.”

MATURITY – TRUE AND FALSE WITNESS

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, (Transcendence)
…..and always [be] ready to [give] a defense (Hierarchy)
……….to everyone who asks you a reason (Altar)
……….for the hope that is in you, (Table – Firstfruits)
……………with meekness and fear; (Trembling – Ethics)
……….having a good conscience, (Trumpets – Witness)
……….that when they defame you as evildoers,
…..those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.
…..(Miscarried Sanctions)
For [it is] better, if it is the will of God,
to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (Judges – elohim)

ATONEMENT – COVERING

For Christ also suffered once for sins, (Sabbath – Ark)
…..the just for the unjust, (Passover – Veil)
……….that He might bring us to God, (Nearbringing – Altar)
……….being put to death in the flesh (Firstfruits – Table)
……………but made alive in the Spirit, in which also (Pentecost – Lampstand)
……….to the prison spirits having gone, He preached (Trumpets – Incense)
…..who formerly did not comply, (Atonement – Sanctions)
when once was waiting the longsuffering of God (Rest/Inheritance)

Now, here is where the tracks of the Bible Matrix stanza panzer draw a line in the sand. The longsuffering of God has nothing to do with the days of Noah. The Greek has no punctuation, but the literary structure often tells us where to make a break.

This means that the “spirits in prison” are not angels. Angels cannot be atoned for. The word “prison” here apparently also carries a connotation of refuge, which fits the Day of Coverings. Although the use of “spirits” for dead men is unusual, the structure demands it. We have “spirit” and “spirits,” the one and the many. It follows the process of sacrifice, and the order of the Dominion pattern. The prison spirits are the slain saints, under the Incense Altar. They, too, were put to death in the flesh, but when Peter wrote, they still awaited their High Priest, and their entrance through the Veil with Him as the fragrant “clouds” to inherit the kingdom and sit on thrones (Rev. 20).

They are at Step 5 here, and relate to the fifth seal in the Revelation — the Old Covenant martyrs. They obviously witnessed – or were witnessed to — of Jesus’ ascension. They ask Him “how long” will it be before they are avenged. They are told to wait a little longer, until the New Covenant martyrs, the apostolic Church, is sealed, has time to witness as Trumpets, and is slain. These two witnesses — Old and New — then called down vengeance upon the Old Creation together, as a united witness. Their stories corroborated, so the Cainite/Herodian whore could be executed under the Law. The patience of God waited until these saints could enter into the rest, the heavenly country, for which they had waited. They could only inherit these promises once Christ opened the heavenly veil for them and covered their sin.

But it has nothing to do with Noah. Peter actually changes his subject here for his final stanza, and the theme of that entire stanza is rest.

GLORIFICATION – REST

In the days of Noah,  (Sabbath – “Noah” means “Rest”)
…..the ark was prepared, (“cut according to plan” – Veil)
……….in which a few, that is, eight souls, (Firstfruits)
……………were saved through water. (Ethics – Pentecost)
……….There is also an antitype which now saves us — (Atonement – Clean Garments)
…..(Atonement – Clean Garments:)
…..baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
…..but the answer of a good conscience toward God),

Peter expands the final line into its own pattern. It is the rest of Jesus, who now sits on the great white (ivory) throne as the true Solomon (the real king of peace) and the true Noah (the first man to qualify as a judge and executioner).

through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (Light)
……….who has gone into heaven (through the Veil)
……………and is at the right hand (Ascension)
………………..of God, (Ruler)
……….angels and authorities and powers (Elders)
…..having been made subject (Conquest)
to Him. (Rest)

Now, of course this is not the entire epistle. This structure appears within an even larger one. I suspect that the letter follows the five-fold Covenant document. As far as I can tell, the basic theme of this passage above is the Covenant Ethics.

_________________________________________
[1]  I think this is an allusion to the Ten Words, the “second tier” of which concerns Adam’s work and Eve’s children (Hierarchy). You can see my layout of this in The Covenant Key, p. 63).

“…falling headlong, he burst open in the middle…”

Todd Robinson commented:

“I’ve enjoyed your particular brand of orthodox preterism. Working through Acts recently, I began to wonder what Michael Bull’s take on Acts 1:11 and 3:19-21 would be… Thanks for any insight.”

On Acts 1:11:

Luke works through the matrix, forming the Covenant Head in the first part, a New Covenant Body in the second part, with the death of Judas at the centre being the reason for the apostolic “Day of Atonement” goat drawn by lot, a makeshift Urim and Thummim:

Commandments (Ark – Transcendence)
…..Delegation to Israel (wait for power)
…..(Veiled promise concerning Israel – Hierarchy)
……….Ascension of Christ (Altar) HEAD – flaming torch
……….Ascension of Disciples – upper room (Table)
……………Judgment of Judas–head and body–under the
……………Old Covenant Law as a picture of AD70
……………(Lampstand – Ethics) [1]
……….Witness of Apostles (Incense) BODY – smoking firepot
…..Selection of Matthias for the “first” death (Mediators – Sanctions)
Apostolic Succession granted (Shekinah)

On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest made two approaches, one for the Covenant Head, the priesthood, with the blood of a bull; another for the Covenant Body, Israel, with the blood of a goat, the “first death.” (The second death was the Azal goat, carrying the curses. [2])

Jesus was taken into the glory cloud as Great High Priest, the Covenant Head, not with the blood of a bull but with His own blood.

“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12)

He would return from “behind the Veil” for the second approach. “So that where I am, you may be also.” He would receive them to Himself to complete the sacrificial ascension of Israel, Head and Body, Adam and Eve, and celebrate the marriage supper, the “rest” for the Old Covenant faithful. [3] This structure is laid out in the ascension offering in Leviticus 1. Notice that we see this predicted in Daniel 7. Jesus is already on His throne, and “one like the Son of God” ascends to be with Him. This interpreted later in the chapter to be the saints inheriting the kingdom. They see Him because they are like Him. [4]

On Acts 3:19-21:

I think verse 25 is the key, the “blessing of all nations” promised to Abraham. The Restoration was prefigured by Israel’s restoration from Babylon. But then, this first century restoration, at the end of the Old Covenant, was the end of that social divide. The end of the New Covenant will be the end of the Creational divide, an even greater restoration. History is chiastic. The judgments are: Physical / Social / Personal / Social / Physical. [6]

But I think, judging by Peter Leithart’s excellent exposition of 2 Peter, that Peter had AD70 in mind. [7] The prophets always preached for the purpose of a moral response in light of a coming judgment, i.e. be the good (repentant) goat, not the bad one.

____________________________________
[1] See Fool’s Gold. It’s interesting that Judas is lifted up in the gospels and “deposed” around Pentecost, just like Satan, and just like the Herods. Notice that Abraham’s sacrifice had the holy birds as undivided head, and animals as divided (Jew-Gentile) body. (See Pass-over and Pass-through). Jesus’ and Judas’ bodies were both divided and emptied, but filth came out of Judas (like Eglon) and living water came out of Jesus. Jesus left the burial linen arranged in the same manner, head and body. The Covenant Head was not crushed.
[2] See The Second Death.
[3] See The End Is Not Yet.
[4] See High As the Horses’ Bridles.
[5] See James Jordan’s exposition of this in his Daniel commentary. The structure of Daniel 7 follows the same pattern as the Levitical Atonement rite, with the fragrant saints caught up in “clouds” prefigured by the incense.
[6] See A New Heavens and a New Earth.
[7] See How To Read the New Testament.

Doug Wilson writes:

“This objection misses the point that Peter is making. The issue with Cornelius and his household was not whether they were old enough to receive water baptism, but whether they were Jewish enough. If this household had contained an infant, the members of the ‘circumcision’ who were there would not have objected to baptism on the grounds of infancy, but rather because the infant was Gentile and uncircumcised” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 55).

Certainly, the issue was whether Gentiles should be baptized, but it was never a pitting of circumcision against baptism. They understood that circumcision was a beginning and baptism was a new beginning. Circumcision was replaced not by baptism but by the death of Christ, which united Jew and Gentile. Jesus tore down that wall, and paedobaptism unwittingly puts it up again. Circumcision marked out flesh as a plot of Land. That is entirely done with. Spirit water overflows all human barriers, it wipes out every distinction with a new one – Repentance and Faith.

A Christian is a tree with fruit, linking the Land (Bronze Altar) with heaven (Incense Altar) via the Laver. Circumcision marked out a plot of Land. It classified Adamic caterpillars, not Evian butterflies. There’s a death and resurrection in the middle.

So, our children can be “Christian” even if they are not yet Christians. They are marked out by the gospel, but all nations are now marked out. There is an outflow from the source of the Spirit into family and culture. But the young are receivers, not the springs. Spirit-filled Christians are the only true fonts.

It’s not the paedobaptistic churches which are known for their cultural diversity. Paedobaptism sends exactly the wrong message. It builds a ghetto. Credobaptists can do this too, with different means. Closed Brethren, like the Pharisees, confuse the Lord’s table with the dinner table, all for the sake of preserving their physical heirs. Their Pharisaic inhospitality has the same result — a spiritual and cultural ghetto. (However, in my experience they do business like postmillennialists — innovative, hard-working and honest!)

So, we have the exclusives who want to keep what they have in concentrated form to preserve it. They build a watery fence. Then we have the inclusives who think spreading what they have can only be achieved by diluting it. They break down the barrier of bloody repentance. Both are wrong. Both fail to understand God’s architecture. If we are really trusting in Jesus for the increase, we can cast our bread on the waters and still end up with twelve baskets of leftovers. An incorruptible outflow takes faith.

In Christ, we can keep all the strange Dutch surnames and have strange names from every other nation as well. Paedobaptism gets inbred. Credobaptism can get mongrelized. The New Covenant is actually about tough hybrids, a constant supply of fresh faith and first love, a place where the “honeymoon” is never over.

Train of Thought

[Concerning Acts 21:18-25] “A false report concerning Paul and his teaching had arrived in the Jerusalem church before Paul had. This report was that he taught Jewish Christians to cease circumcising their infant sons.” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 62).

Pastor Wilson begins this chapter of his book by stating that the duties of Covenant parents did not change with the New Covenant. This is true (with obvious minor qualifications).

He uses Timothy’s training under the Law since infancy as an example. But then he sees the Covenant sign as something to be applied to all Covenant children. This is where the logic falls down, because baby girls did not qualify. So, the reason for the disconnect between Covenant parenting and the Covenant sign must be identified, otherwise the rest of the argument is founded on a cracked slab.

Pastor Wilson admits that there are no explicit cases of infant baptism in the New Testament, and that making a strong case for it from the Old is not enough. But, as mentioned above, this “strong case” only applied to males, and not just infant ones. When it came to individual Covenant members, circumcision clearly signified something other than Covenant childhood.

He then looks for evidence of infant baptism, assuming that the New Testament writers also assumed that such a practice was an obvious and logical extension of the Old Order into the New. This brings us to the quote above. Pastor Wilson’s logic is this:

Paul did not teach that Jews should cease circumcising their sons.

Agreed.

Paul’s continued practice of circumcision (of Timothy) and his taking of a Nazirite vow were not compromises because the Temple was still standing and Paul and Timothy had Jewish blood.

Agreed. We are on the same train here.

Circumcision was not a cultural badge but a Covenant act to be practiced in faith.

Yes, it was to be practiced in faith, but it was also a cultural badge. Although temporary, Judaism was a prepackaged God-given culture, a schoolroom designed to raise a nation with a knowledge of God through object lessons and discipline. If this were the Super8 movie, Doctor Woodward just drove his pickup onto Pastor Wilson’s traintracks.

Then he writes:

“…circumcision remained an ordinance of God, marking the initiation of the one who received it as a member of the visible Covenant community. Circumcision continued to mean that the one who received it was under an obligation to be a true son of Abraham, –i.e. a Christian.” (TATG, p. 64).

This is where the train comes off the rails.

Circumcision only marked the males. It was not for all Covenant members, nor heads of households (although this was related). It marked out one genealogy of Adamic flesh that was continually innoculated with small doses of death to keep it from dying out under God’s judgment. It was entirely about seed, as if that needed to be pointed out. It was Adam’s nakedness uncovered, and blood-covered, as Covenant Head, so that he could one day be crowned with glory and honour, i.e. qualify as Mediator for a truly integrated, bridal Covenant Body.

Circumcision did not ever mean that one was to be a Christian, but a believing male Jew, one who faithfully carried on the physical lineage in faith until Messiah arrived. That’s why the term Christian was coined, to describe something new. These Christians were some strange sort of hybrid, like broccoli. Initially, the Jewish Christians demanded Gentile males be circumcised because they thought these Gentiles were joining Israel in the same manner as Caleb the Kenizzite did, or the Shechemites attempted to. It was primarily about intermarriage and physical seed; a culture of faith, yes, but nevertheless a culture.

To a certain degree, the logic of these Jewish Christians was actually sound. If baptism meant you were a “true Jew,” then you had to have the “Jew” bit in place first before baptism could justify the addition of the adjective “true.” They understood circumcision as an initiation into a culture of flesh, and baptism as vindication of faith. But the apostles made it clear that the “flesh” wall was actually now redundant. If your heart was circumcised, your flesh didn’t need to be.

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)

Jesus, a Jewish male, had condemned sin in the flesh. That’s what circumcision signified. With that completed, the Jewish culture was coming to an end, the childhood Temple outgrown like an eggshell. Paul’s observance of circumcision and vows were simply what every preacher does for his audience. He starts where they are, and brings them to where he is, from circumcision to baptism, from death to life.

A Bleeder or a Splasher

If it were true that infant baptism was the norm in the apostolic churches, the Jews wouldn’t have had the problem with it that is described in Acts 21. It would have been an entirely different problem:

“Paul, you affirm circumcision for Jews, but that leaves us with a problem. The pregnant Jewesses in our church are no longer asked if they are expecting a boy or a girl. Some tactless Gentiles are asking them if they are having a bleeder or a splasher! Are you entirely certain that we are supposed to carry out both rites on the baby boys? And if so, do we do it on the same day? And seeing as we only baptize the baby girls, are we to sprinkle the girls on the eighth day?”

No, circumcision was one of the “elementary things” that Peter said would soon be burned up. It would leave faith, hope and love. Baptism vindicates repentance and faith, the beginning of a new life.

A Helpful Picture

Back to Super8. There is a wonderful picture of the contrast and unity of the Old and New Covenants towards the end of the movie. Don’t read on if you haven’t seen it.

The alien is down in Hades, the insatiable Tabernacle of death. He’s munching on the living dead, and cutting up the “raw materials” of the world to build his new star-house. When he’s ready, he is “lifted up” into the cockpit, the throneroom, and starts to draw all sorts of strange Gentile bric-a-brac. They don’t need to be cut up (circumcised) because they are not forming the house, they are filling it, glorifying it. Finally, when the time for corporate resurrection arrives, the water tower bursts (passing through the crystal sea) and the entire apostolic hybrid church meets the Lord in the air. Baptism promises resurrection.

Baptism is the vindication of the completed mediatorial body, not the setting apart of the Adamic raw material. Infants do not qualify. If Paul had encountered Lois and Eunice when Timothy was an infant, he would not have baptized him. He was still being formed under the Law.

The New Covenant is not about carnal genealogies. God is faithful to a thousand generations, but the definition of “offspring” has been transcended. Timothy was Paul’s son “in the Lord.” That’s the kind of offspring God wants. It is a spring of faith, not flesh. Faith is the qualifier. It doesn’t replace the flesh, whether that is godly parenting or any other Covenant responsibility. It fills the flesh and wipes out every other division, cultural or otherwise, other than faith.

“The advent of Christ did not result in Jewish parents starting to wait until their children made a profession of faith before they were circumcised. The Jewish Christians did not suddenly switch to ‘believer’s circumcision.’” (TATG, p. 65.)

Of course they didn’t. They understood that circumcision was about heredity, and baptism was about faith. Walking in the Spirit negates the requirement for any type of cultural or racial ghetto. Pastor Wilson’s book has a lot of well-argued, logical progressions, but it’s facing the wrong way at the starting line. [1]

___________________________________________________
[1] See An Atheist ‘Gets’ Baptism.