But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (James 1:14-15)

The structure of God’s work in the world finds its origin in His trinity: Word, Sacrament, Government (Discipline). Often in the prophets, the man of God is given a sign which is a type of a greater event to come. The prophet is the sacrament that mediates the Word of discipline to the People.

A few Old Testament examples stand out in my memory: the slavery of Joseph and the slavery of the Hebrews; the kingly upbringing, rejection, exodus and exaltation of Moses as Head, as qualification to take the “Body of Moses” through the same process; the promise of a son to the prophetess in Isaiah 7, whose childhood food would be the food of a nation ravaged by its lack of discernment; Ezekiel’s crazy antics that would be fulfilled in tragic history; and James Jordan’s very interesting applications of Daniel’s prophecies to Daniel’s own life in microcosm, as a sign of the future of his people. [1]

The examples of this process in the New Testament are most interesting, and mostly overlooked. There is, of course, Judas, who is exiled from the supper as the “second goat,” and whose fate is a sign for all Judah. [2] And the death and resurrection of Jesus as head, and the subsequent death of Israel and her resurrection as the completed Jew-Gentile Christian church.

The fate of Ananias and Sapphira is a sign that looks both backward and forward. The passage has two cycles, one for the Head (Ananias) and one for the Body (Sapphira). Between them, there is an ominous space of three hours.

We can see that the sin of this couple echoes that of Ahab’s and Jezebel’s murder of Naboth for his land. But this New Testament couple didn’t murder anyone. The sin against Naboth is what the sin in Acts 4 grows into if left unchecked, which is exactly what we see in the previously mentioned case of Judas and Judah. Garden sins grow into Land sins and then into World sins, at which point God brings a flood. [3]

No, their sin was deception of the church, those gathered by the Holy Ghost. Peter states clearly that Ananias had the power of judgment over his own money (and the structure of Peter’s speech puts the man at the centre as a “governing light”). Ananias’ death is the application of a New Covenant sanction. For him there was no Covenant succession. And, of course, the testing of Sapphira follows the same pattern. This couple was chosen, like Judas, to be an example for all those who would smuggle the leaven of a corrupted Old Covenant into Jesus’ New House.

So, two cycles, then the passage as a whole follows the Totus Christus head-and-body structure. The fact that they are delineated as separate events—husband and wife—suggests to me that this story is the “Day of Atonement” step of a larger pattern (see Totus Christus p. 387). Why?

We see the same thing in the life of Abraham, in his third “cycle.” He entered the Promised Land twice, briefly: once to offer Isaac and again to bury Sarah. He made the same two approaches as the High Priest on the Day of Atonement: once to cover the Head (the priesthood: bull’s blood) and once to cover the Body (the people: goat’s blood). This might seem arbitrary, but the structure makes it plain.

We see the same thing, of course, in Adam and Eve. Except that we don’t. The lack of capital punishment as a Covenant Sanction is a handy foil for those who believe that the death promised was only “spiritual death” (so they can cram their evolutionary Creation-by-death fantasies into Genesis). Adam and Eve were spared. Substitutionary animals were slain to cover their sin.

So, what’s the deal with the Adam, Eve, and serpent conspiracy in Acts 5? This was a New Creation, and such sins were going to be cut off at the source. Abraham entered the Land twice, and, as a kind of High Priest, survived in the Most Holy. Ananias and Sapphira sinned concerning the true Land, the heavenly country.

In his Revelation lectures, Jordan observes that all the sins which Jesus judges in the letters to the seven pastors are then shown to be full-grown in Herodian state worship. The “Balaamites” are false prophets and “Jezebel” is the church’s spiritual harlot. He calls the pastors, like Peter, to nip the sins in the bud. [4] As mentioned earlier, the conspiracy of Judas was amplified in the Jewish polity until the Man of Sin (as Ananias) and the Harlot (as Sapphira) were institutional sins that had reached an ugly maturity. The seven bowls in Revelation are the Day of Atonement. [5]

How are we doing reading the signs—both positive and negative—in our own lives, in the lives of the Christians we disciple (including our children), and the churches we pastor? The wisest of us read them in the Word (and in other people’s lives) and obey early, then develop holy lives (Sacrament), and live to become godly elders (Government). Many of us, however, wait until our disobedience begins to take on a life of its own (flesh: anti-Sacrament) before we act. And apostates keep at it until God brings a sword (Government) and they drop dead.

Ananias and Sapphira were a sign for those Jews who had tasted the Word of God and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and would yet fall away. [6] They were also a sign to those who would take communion unworthily, which is an act of lying to the people of God and the Holy Spirit, concerning unconfessed sin, ie. “I have judged myself wisely, and need not to be judged.”

____________________________________________

[1] See James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall.
[2] See Fool’s Gold.
[3] See Trinitarian Judgments.
[4] See The Eighth Letter.
[5] See Seven Bowls of Wrath.
[6] Please note that, unlike many, I do not believe these people lost their salvation (if they were truly saved). The destruction referred to was the Jewish war, which is the context of the warnings in the Book of Hebrews.

PS: I’m taking a week off from blogging, so catch you on the 26th.

Michael F. Bird recently wrote:

The Jerusalem council achieved a via media by finding in Scripture a justification for the inclusion of Gentiles within the church without requiring circumcision and placing upon Gentiles only the obligation to avoid idol food and sexual immorality. Yet the Jerusalem council also permitted the existence of two parallel theologies: one theology where the Gentiles were uncircumcised equals in a renewed Israel with holiness constituted by the Spirit and another theology where uncircumcised Gentiles were guests in an Israelite remnant that still defined holiness through Torah observance. The Jerusalem council’s decisions seem optimized in a setting where Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians remain in parallel rather than integrated, especially in relation to shared meals. The council did not stipulate the standard of law observance to be upheld for Eucharistic fellowship to ensue.

Bird makes some interesting observations in his post, but two parallel theologies? Is that really what was going on? And does the council’s decision apply to modern observance of the Torah (ie. Messianic Jews)?

Theology is an overused word, for sure. Two theologies almost indicates two ways of understanding God, if not two separate gods. But the mention of Torah observance clarifies Bird’s meaning: the Jerusalem council maintained that Jewish believers approached God in one way, and Gentile believers approached God in another. And both were valid.

This AD30-AD70 era of “overlap” was the fulfilment of the Old Covenant order, with the Hebrews/Jews as a priestly nation mediating for the Gentiles. There were two tables: Passover for the mediators alone, and Tabernacles for Jews and Gentiles as one body (with 70 bulls sacrificed for the 70 nations in Genesis 10). [1] Salvation came to the Jews first because they were in the Holy Place, and the Gentiles were in the outer court. The “sons of God” set the Covenant table and invite the “daughters of men” to eat at it.

The only reason the Jews could still observe the Torah, and why Paul could take a Nazirite vow, was that the Temple was still standing. Observing Torah might have been valid when the Jerusalem council met, but as these early decades of the church rolled on, the door of the new age was opening wider and wider, and the light of the church era was eradicating the shadows of the old order. [2]

The Revelation illustrates this process of increase/decrease in a number of ways—in symbols. One of the most striking is the Black Horse, announcing that the Old Covenant grains were wasting away while the New Covenant oil and wine were in abundant supply. The Green Horse (the Levitical sword) finished it off.

Another is the symbol of “buying and selling.” [3] In Acts, the Jewish Christians are meeting in the Temple, but by the end of the process they were locked out. The Jewish polity unwittingly locked the Pentecostal glory of God out of His own house. It was left unprotected, which brought about its desolation.

Like rusty trainer wheels, Torah observance was a decayed, torn veil that soon passed away, despite the desperate post-mortem stitching of the Herodians and the zealots. And as Paul stitched Jew and Gentile together across the empire over the next decades, Torah observance also decayed. By the end, it was only the hardliners who remained, and God called them together to Jerusalem for a feast in which they themselves were the meat on the table for the Gentiles they despised.

The “parallel theologies” were the fulfilment of the Old Covenant two-feast order, but this bipolarity was temporary. [4] The book of Hebrews trumpets the end of the division of Adam begun in Abraham. [5]

Salvation was certainly of the Jews, but that Abrahamic blood was now in heaven. The blood no longer mattered. Only Spirit now mattered.

The wise decision of the Jerusalem Council cannot be applied to anyone beyond AD70, when James’ temporary “Tabernacle of David” (the firstfruits church) was consumed by the true Temple of Solomon. We live in a permanent house.

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God.”

__________________________________
[1] See Eat Local and Die for the only way this applies today.
[2] See The End of Shadows.
[3] See Worship As Commerce.
[4] See Three Babylons.
[5] See The End of Judaism.

Or Rich Jewish Rulers made Poor, Blind and Naked
Or The Bible Teaches Replacement Theology

According to James Jordan, there’s nothing much in Revelation that isn’t also elsewhere in the New Testament. We just don’t get Revelation because we don’t speak the language of the Old Testament with any confidence. Accordingly, his interpretation of the Apocalypse interprets the seven Seals as the release of the gospel. The Trumpets are the warnings of the Apostles to the Jews until the beginning of the Roman siege. [1]

The book of Acts shows how Rome was indeed a “guarding cherubim” for Israel, and we see this protection shift from the Jews to the Gentiles. [2] Roman officials begin protecting Christians from Jewish persecution. Jews are no longer able to cast out demons. A synagogue ruler has to leave his house to go to church – in a Gentile house next door. All of this is highly ironic, as are God’s warnings to His disobedient Covenant people in any age.

Sometimes the irony is quite subtle. Acts 13:44 – 15:35 follows the 7-point dominion pattern (all of Acts is structured this way [3]). But also, the apostolic speech in 13:46-49 itself follows the pattern. As in Revelation, it is a seven-sealed scroll as step 3 within a seven-fold book. It is a speech that steals the Covenant away from the unbelieving Jews like a thief in the night, and gives it to believing Gentiles.

In this speech, you can see the Creation week, the Tabernacle furniture, and the Feasts. Note the un-Passover at step 2, a new priesthood at step 3, the burning bush (Lampstand) at step 4, Gentile armies summoned at Trumpets as a warning to the Jews, provoking them to jealousy (step 5), and Gentiles appointed as the first goat at step 6, the Day of Coverings. Finally, the gospel flows out as the four rivers from a new Eden, as Shekinah within converted men.

“It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you.

……….Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy
……….of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 

………………..For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

…………………………‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
…………………………that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ 

………………..And when the Gentiles heard this, they began
………………..rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, 

……….and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. 

And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region.” 
(Acts 13:46-49)

This all makes the pumped-up politico-Passovers of the early AD60′s a high-handed rebellion against the wrath of God revealed from heaven by the apostles. [4]

_______________________________________________________________
[1] Lectures available here.
[2] You can see a full outline in Totus Christus: A Biblical Theology of the Whole Christ 
[3] The Gentile empires from Babylon to Rome are four cherubim under a great throne of God. See James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall.
[4] See also  Un-Passover

Need help combating those pesky liberal scholars who insist the Bible has been cobbled together and is nothing but an archaic shambles? Or those premillennialists who gasp in horror when you mention that the church replaced Israel? You need a strong dose of interpretive maximalism. It cuts liberal scholarship and dispensational nonsense to shreds. How? It shows, using repeated typology, that orthodox preterism and postmillennialism flow naturally out of the Old Testament.

Many dismiss it as excessive, overly imaginative and even bizarre. Typology has most definitely been abused. But the Bible contains its own constraints, and from my own experience, its internal consistency is breathtaking. Abuses are easily identifiable. Utilising this method is like reading the Bible in Blu-Ray.

“James B. Jordan’s maximalist hermeneutic seeks to read the Bible in a way that allows the depth and richness of its meaning to be discerned. The relationship between special and general revelation is important, as the world teaches us how to understand the Bible, and the Bible shows us how to interpret the world. The reader of the Bible should learn to be sensitive to all its literary tropes, in particular its rich symbolism and typology. Controls on this maximalist hermeneutic are not found in externally imposed rules but in theological and ecclesiastical traditions which themselves derive from the Bible.”1

“Jordan does brutalise liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.”2

A great place to start is Jordan’s lecture series Garden of God. Once slightly inebriated, you will progress to his lectures on Revelation, which are a secret storeroom of single malt. If you claim to be a preterist (of any description) and you haven’t heard these, you haven’t seen the forest for the trees.

David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance gets downloaded from my site over 30 times a day (add that up for three years!). It’s a great commentary, but Jordan’s lectures use the Bible instead of Josephus to interpret Revelation. Chilton was peeping through the keyhole. Jordan throws open the door. These are cutting edge and, I believe, indispensable for anyone with an interest in preterism.

Available here, or from www.wordmp3.com

– Mike the Maximalist

Addendum: I found an excellent definition of maximalism in the glossary at a site called www.two-age.org

“Maximalism in literature is the scheme in which the author invests each character, image, section, and chapter of the narrative with a reflection of the entire plotline of the story. When we speak of interpretive maximalism with reference to Scripture we mean that principle of hermeneutics by which we recognize that the Author of Scripture has invested reflections of his plan of redemption in each of the many characters, passages, themes, and sections of the Bible; and thus we recognize God’s sovereignty and gracious self-revelation. Interpretive maximalism is a difficult chore, because a thorough understanding of the plot-line is pre-requisite. Thus, any error in one’s understanding of the plot-line is multiplied exponentially in each sub-section.”

_____________

1  Abstract: The Maximalist Hermeneutics of James B. Jordan, R. S Clarke, www.ecclesiareformanda.org.uk

2  J. B. Atken referring to Jordan’s commentary on Daniel, www.puritanboard.com

Being a Jew was never a matter of bloodline, but of Covenant. Think of Abraham’s servants circumcised in Genesis 17, the Egyptians at the Exodus, Caleb the Kenizzite, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah, etc. It seems the Old Testament keeps throwing us examples of people “grafted in.” The only actual bloodline of any importance is the one we are given, the family tree from Abraham to Christ.

Israel’s captivity and Restoration gave us a perfect picture of the New Covenant events. The Temple and walls of the old Israel were ‘de-created’ and God Himself (the ark) died in Babylon for the sake of a new Jerusalem with impregnable walls.

Christ was the human ark. Judaism, intermarried with Roman political power, became Babylon.

My point is, the captivity was a death-and-resurrection of first century Israel (the resurrection as predicted in Ezekiel 37) in type. The first century was the antitype. Thus, whatever remains of Judaism today is like exhumed idols from the eras of Jeroboam, Ahab*, Omri and Manasseh.

It is not about blood. It never was. It is about Covenant, and there is only one of those. Despite its various death-and-resurrection renewals, there has only ever really been one covenant. There is no replacement of God’s people, only transfiguration from glory to glory.

*Remember it was Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah that almost DID destroy this single bloodline that mattered. Jehoash was the single son who escaped, an echo of Moses and a type of Christ.

“Danger!” the dispensationalist pundits are shouting. “Watch out for replacement theology!” This specter of “replacement theology,” also masquerading under the pseudo-academic moniker “supersessionism,” looms ominously over Christendom. One blogger blogs, “One of the most dangerous and subversive doctrines held by adherents of Preterism, is the view that in A.D. 70, at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, God’s covenant nation of Israel was superseded by the Christian church.” A website adds, “There is a demonic cancer coursing through the life blood of the Church of Jesus Christ and its name is REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY.” Yet another puts it bluntly, “This is a heresy . . .” Joel McDermon, Replacing Replacement Theology

Fight terminology with terminology. Throughout the Bible it is clear that God’s priestly nation went through many death-and-resurrection renewals. No one calls those ‘replacements.’ Can you imagine theologians arguing that Ezra’s Temple and Nehemiah’s new Jerusalem were only a temporary parenthesis, and that God would give Israel back their old kingdom?

The same thing exactly happened in the first century. Israel died and was resurrected anew. So, I propose new jargon – ‘Transformation Theology: don’t stay left behind.’