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

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

“It belongs in a museum!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I want to be like Doug Wilson when I grow up. My aim is to go full-Wilson in life. But to get there I must not go all-in Wilsonian…”

A guest post by Steven Opp

Doug Wilson is one of my heroes. I check his blog all the time, have read many of his books, and whenever a new interview or discussion with him appears on the internet, I tune in. When it comes to family living, cultural engagement, and politics he is probably the most influential person in my life. I love Doug Wilson and want to be like him when I grow up!

Wilson recently wrote a blog post titled “The Invisible Mainspring of Human Conflict.” It is a history of four major paradigm shifts in his theology over the years. They are:

1. Eschatology (he became postmillennial in 1985)
2. Soteriology (he became a Calvinist in 1988)
3. Covenant (he became a paedobaptist in 1993)
4. Girard (he became a partial-Girardian in 2006)

It was a fun read to see how the Lord has, over time, molded and sharpened Wilson’s views.

The article spends the most time on the fourth one on the list. The anthropologist/literary critic René Girard has a fascinating theory about the source of human conflict which Wilson says has helped him in understanding why clashes sometimes happen the way they do. He concludes, “Since I first read Girard, I have still gotten into conflicts. But I am not really mystified in the midst of them any more.”

While acknowledging Girard’s insights regarding desire and conflict as being extremely important in seeing what is really going on in the biblical text, Wilson also recognizes where Girard misses the mark. He says he finds Girard’s scriptural insights to be about 80% helpful, and where the good Frenchman falls short is mostly due to his views of the atonement.

Not only does Wilson only give Girard’s biblical analysis four out of five stars, he also warns of applying Girardian human conflict theory across the board lest it be abused. In other words, if you observe every motivation and discord through a Girardian lens you’ll miss the forest for the trees. Wilson explains, “perhaps you have absolutized the concept, which is another way of not grasping it. That is one of the reasons I don’t go all in with Girard—I find him too valuable, and don’t want to lose his insights. Going full Girardian means ceasing to be Girardian.”

I agree with everything Wilson says about Girardian theory, the fourth paradigm shift in his theological journey. What I would like to do in this essay is to show how in regards to Wilson’s other three paradigm shifts I am on board to a similar extent, about 80%. I find his views in these areas to be about 80% helpful. And where I believe he has gone 20% too far in each paradigm is where he loses its spirit. In other words, in these three areas going full Wilsonian means ceasing to be Wilsonian.

A Quick Stop in Narnia

Before doing this, let me first introduce a metaphor which I think will be useful in explaining what I mean.

In addition to reading much of what Wilson writes, I sometimes read what he recommends. One of the books he gives five out of five stars to in a review is Planet Narnia by Michael Ward. It is a very thorough and fascinating guide to seeing how C.S. Lewis intentionally themed each of his Chronicles of Narnia books after one of the “seven heavens,” the planets recognized by the medievals. I just finished Planet Narnia, thoroughly enjoyed it, and highly recommend it.

Ward explains how the first book in the series, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, takes place in the “world” of Jupiter. The themes and messages are all “jovial” (Jove is another name for Jupiter). Jupiter is the planet of merriment, royalty, and springtime. It is also the largest planet, and according to Lewis the most important, ruling the night skies. If you’ve read the stories, you know the first chronicle is about jolly Aslan bringing spring and enthroning the four children in Narnia.

The final book in the series, The Last Battle, has a Saturnine theme. Saturn, in contrast to Jupiter, is dark and cold. The positive word to describe the spirit of Saturn is “contemplative”. But Saturn is also regarded as the planet behind ugliness, old age, fate, irony, and death. All of these concepts are heavy in The Last Battle. An ugly old ape tricks the Narnians by covering a donkey in a lionskin in place of the real Aslan before one catastrophe follows another and eventually all the characters die.

Both Jupiter and Saturn are important and have their roles to play, but the contrast is sharp. Saturn is about contemplation. Jupiter is about play. Saturn is godly sorrow. Jupiter is godly joy. Saturn is Father Time. Jupiter is Father Christmas.¹Girard was born on Christmas Day and his middle name is Noël,  a fun foretaste of his wintery secularist anthropology in time converting and fleshing out so much of the Word of God. Girard’s work, which focuses on chronic envy, is ultimately a jovial gift.

The Last Battle, while being Saturnine, does not end with ultimate death. Rather, it ends with a beautiful eucatastrophe, Tolkien’s word for a surprise happy ending. Or, you might say, it ends with a Jupiter ending. The jovial tone of the final chapters of the story is more like the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

The point Lewis makes is that though Saturn is big and important, he doesn’t get the final word. Rather Jupiter, king of the heavens, trumps gloomy Saturn and has the last laugh.

What I would like to do is to use Saturn and Jupiter to represent the difference between theology and the spirit of theology. Or, to put it another way, between the theology and the theologian.

Theology, like Saturn, is contemplative. When taken by itself, it is cold, dark ink on paper. Theology is important because ideas need to be presented in order to be understood. But for the words to truly be applied they must be transcended. They must be traced up to the spirit behind them, whether it be the deeper meaning or the character of the writer which the words fail to capture. This significance, the “take home”, is Jupiter above Saturn, what goes beyond the contemplation and has a life of its own.

Doug Wilson is a Jupiter. He is a jolly man. His theology is his Saturn, his contemplations. Where it is correct it is functioning in the appropriate Saturnine way, channeling truth and the character of Wilson himself in it so that others may jump on board. Where it is incorrect it morphs into things like oldness and fate and stillborn irony. Wrong theology is Saturn eclipsing Jupiter. Where I disagree with Wilson on his theology, the 20%, is where I see the contemplations becoming inflated and things going dark, hiding the real meaning and the real man. In other words, going full Saturn means ceasing to be Jupiter. Going full Wilsonian is ceasing to be Wilsonian.

I will now take you through Wilson’s first three paradigms and discuss where I see Saturn being contemplative and wise and where I see it hovering in the way of Jupiter’s spring.

Eschatology
Entering the Wardrobe

Wilson’s book Heaven Misplaced was the second book of his I ever read (after Persuasions) and it was like an oasis in the wilderness for me. It was also a big reason I started reading more of his work and began paying attention to what was going on in Moscow. The clear headed thinking in Heaven Misplaced that Jesus might not be back any time soon, and without any dream-killing disclaimers like “but no one really knows the day or hour so be ready (instead of going out and changing the world)” was wonderful to read.

In addition to learning about this positive eschatological outlook, I also saw it in action. Wilson’s church is full of people who believe in bringing Heaven to Earth in every capacity, and when I lived in Moscow I had the benefit of watching them do it, making schools, businesses, and families all with the kingdom building goals of dominion and legacy.

Too Much Chronicle and Not Enough Narnia

So why does Wilson’s postmillennial eschatology only get four and not five stars? Saturn refuses to give up his seat for Jupiter when the idea that the world won’t end soon extends into the assumption that it might not end for a very, very long time. I’ve heard Wilsonian postmillennialists use language like, “a hundred thousand years from now…” I find this to be irresponsible at best and unbiblical at worst.

First of all, it neglects to take nature into account. I understand that most environmental warnings today are hoaxes. But the oceans will fill with salt eventually, and the sun will one day burn out. To suggest that it won’t is making some of the same errors evolutionists make when they posit millions of years on the front end of things. This world is strong, but not invincible, and it cannot endure the beatings of Father Time for infinity in either direction.

From a more theological perspective, if the end comes when the world is discipled and the last enemy is death, to not put any sort of timeline on that limits the power of God. Just as atheists think they can hide the Creator Father behind a bunch of zeros when talking quantitatively about time past, so this sort of postmil thinking buries the Recreator Holy Spirit behind a bunch of zeros when talking about the future. God does not rush, but it will not take him a million years to wash the 10/40 Window (which is already much cleaner than it was twenty years ago), and we won’t be beaming to other colonies on other planets as we wait for peace in the Middle East. Syria will become Christian, Ceres will not.

Saturn has a Curfew

The spirit of postmillennial thought is wonderful. Let Christians be free and comfortable in this wonderful world. Let us faithfully endure death as we work to overcome all of the other enemies, building beautiful cities and cultures as we go. But let us not forget that Jove has the last laugh, and that Saturn’s old age will not define the future. Death must be with us for a time, but not for that long of a time.

Soteriology
Providence Picks a Picker

My friend David Salazar, now fifty, grew up a hard working kid filling baskets with the fruit that grew on the trees of central California. But when he wasn’t at work, he and his brothers did things their own way and his life was savage and base. One day when he was in his early twenties an evangelist came to his door and David bent the knee. The first book he read after that besides the Bible was Calvin’s Institutes, and it changed his life. He said that for the first time he understood what a loving father is, how he relates to his children, and that God himself is such a father.

My understanding is that this story of God’s grace and paternity encapsulates the “real Calvin”, so to speak. The Jupiter Calvin. The Calvin with no “ism” or “ist” attached. And when I think of Calvin, and reformed theology in general, I think of the sovereignty of God above all things, along with a rich and impactful church history.

Avoid all Isms Except for Prisms

Where I think Calvinists, Wilson included, fall short is in their “marketing,” so to speak. When the guy on the street hears “Calvinism,” he instinctually thinks of fatalism. He instinctually thinks of Saturn and not Jupiter. “But you don’t really understand Calvin” the Calvinist so often must explain. Well, is this a problem with the man on the street or with Calvinism itself? If the distinction is so important shouldn’t it be a bit easier to explain? A bit easier to understand?

One illustration Wilson uses to communicate the sovereignty of God is that God is writing history like Shakespeare would write a play. Can Hamlet challenge Shakespeare for how he wrote his part? Neither should man call out God for how he wrote his part. And the distance between God and man is infinitely greater than the distance between Shakespeare and Hamlet.

This is all true, but we also have to remember that the distance between God and man is infinitely smaller than between Shakespeare and Hamlet. Shakespeare never became one of the characters in his play. God did. To put it another way, as Mike Bull has tweeted, “Was Jesus a Calvinist or an Arminian? Both. The incarnation was the sovereignty of God and the will of Man united at last.”

Calvinism is helpful in emphasizing God’s sovereignty. But the Bible doesn’t speak in these sorts of terms much (predestination, reprobation, etc.) The Bible isn’t that Saturnine about it. But as long as they wear the label, the “ism”, Calvinists are being Saturnine about it, and those reformed beards start to look less like Calvin’s and more like the beard of Chronos. At a certain point this sort of contemplation bends towards fatalism and people don’t see the living Spirit of the Father in Calvin’s theology as Salazar did when he first read him. Rather, they just see a casket with tulips on top.

I Elect the Big Man

So I’m with Wilson 80% of the way on soteriology. But as for how to best communicate the mystery of the marriage of divine and human agency, I’ll fall for the gravitas of Chesterton every time. His cracks at Calvinism tickle my funny bone a little more than Wilson’s pokes at Arminianism. Jovial G.K., in this regard, takes the cake—and no one made him do it.

Covenant
Cair Paravel is for Real

Which came first, the king or his crown? Covenantal theology is wonderful because it emphatically says “Crown!” without any shame. Lewis’ goal in using planet imagery in Narnia was to emphasize that there are constant things going on beyond nature. You are born into something bigger than you.

Covenantal theology also makes sense of many other things as well, and is useful in debates regarding evolution, marriage, and politics, to name a few. It is very important for navigating one’s way in the world.

The fundamentals of the Federal Vision theology which Wilson agrees with affirm the connection between the sacraments and the covenant. This is important because it preserves the power of the sacraments. When someone is baptized into the kingdom of God, something objective happens. They are now enlisted, so to speak. And like a spouse in a marriage, they are in whether they like it or not. Union with Christ is real, and so are the means of entering into it.

Uncircumcised Application

So far so good. But when it comes to covenant theology administration, Wilson drives 100 where the speed limit is 80. And the lead (the Saturnine metal) in his foot is paedosacraments.

Wilson recently admitted on a podcast that at first glance at scripture the Baptists have a better argument when it comes to who to baptize than the paedobaptists do; you don’t see a bunch of babies being dunked, let alone sprinkled, in the New Testament. But, he argues, if you take the Bible as a whole you have a “juggernaut” of structural/typological evidence which supports paedosacraments.

Most Baptists can’t take down that juggernaut. They end up feeling outsmarted, shrug off the argument because they sense that paedobaptism is still weird, and go back to dunking converts. For me, I never wanted to be outsmarted so I took the paedobaptists’ conclusions on authority. But there was always a part inside of me that still thought it strange. It wasn’t until I started reading Mike Bull that I saw exactly why.

What appealed to me about Bull is that he didn’t try to fight the “covenant theology” juggernaut. He commandeered it. Standing on the shoulders of typological giants James Jordan, Peter Leithart, and Doug Wilson he actually took the juggernaut, figured out what a lot of the seemingly useless buttons and levers do, and showed how the paedobaptists had misinterpreted its trajectory. Furthermore, far from being the juggernaut itself, paedobaptism (what he calls “bapcision”, an ugly hybrid of baptism and circumcision) is in fact the rope tying the Federal Vision juggernaut to a stake and keeping it from being released and changing the world.

The main way Bull cuts the paedobaptistic cord is by acknowledging the similarities (covenantal juggernaut) between circumcision and baptism, but also the differences (Baptist horse sense). To understand these differences, you need to read more of Bull’s writing on baptism. You will need to immerse yourself in biblical symbols before it will begin to make sense but as you do, you’ll start to see how the pieces don’t just fit together, they fit in three dimensions.²See The Myth of Covenant Membership. As Bull says, “Bad theologians need to think in pictures. Good theologians need to think in moving pictures.” After reading Bull for a while, I started to see these moving pictures. And like Wilson says of Girard’s scriptural insights, “Once you see them there, you can never unsee them.”

Here is the main thing that those with a strong understanding of the covenant have a hard time wrapping their minds around because they still see it as flat: Every person on the planet, that includes Doug Wilson’s baptized grandchildren and the baby born to an ISIS leader, are born under the New Covenant. They are all born under the same King, Jesus Christ, and his circumcision, that is, his crucifixion, is the new blood boundary encompassing all people—not just Jews, and not just the baptized. Like the Jews under Mosaic Law, everyone within this boundary is under the same terms of faithfulness to the covenant: metanoeite and believe.³See Paranoia and Metanoia. To baptize a baby and say they are now in this covenant is therefore redundant. Christ is Lord of all, wet or dry, churched or unchurched.

So the covenant has to do with authority (the crown), and who wears it (Jesus Christ). But here’s the third dimension that makes paedobaptists go cross-eyed: to truly be baptized into Christ requires a confession. This confession is done in faith, which comes by hearing. It is not taken hold of by being born according to the flesh (Christian parents) but by being born according to the Spirit. It is not about being born into a Christian heritage (generations) but about being born again as a co-heir with Christ (regeneration). It is not about who your earthly father is, or your godfather, but who your Heavenly Father is, your Father God. Now you are not just under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (like every child in the world since Jesus came), you are now an ambassador of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, washed on the inside by it and adopted into His family. You aren’t just at the event. You wear the staff uniform. You don’t go from being outside of Christ’s realm to then being under the crown (complete with expectations to behave as a Christian, a new form of law) as “bapcision” would have you do. No, a biblical baptism takes from being merely under the crown to wearing a crown of your own.

Covenant theology that veers toward paedosacraments creates an add-on to the Gospel: Christ plus covenant (a word rarely used in the New Testament). But Christ is the New Covenant.⁴See Jesus and Covenant – Part 1. This is the key to truly understanding the covenant. Everyone is under him. But only those who have heard him and have seen him, who believe, who share His Spirit, are in him. You have to go to Narnia and meet Aslan before you are given a seat on a throne in the castle by the sea. You have to encounter Jesus. He is the Jupiter that outshines Saturn. And that impersonal extra 20% Saturnine paedosacramental covenant theology is covering the face of Jupiter, the face of the King.

I will make one final illustration about the bleakness of paedobaptism which goes undetected by those who practice it but is obvious to those on the outside who see a donkey tail poking out from under the lionskin. Saturn is the planet of irony, and that is good and necessary. But it can also fall flat when unchecked by Jupiter. Paedosacramentalists think they are revealing a cute irony in the gospel, that Christ saves us before we even realized we needed saving, that little children who have no knowledge are as valuable as the wise old sage, for God is no respector of persons. True as it is, the joke itself is in poor taste because the butt of it is still in diapers and isn’t playing along.

What makes a biblical baptism jovial is that the sinner who the joke is on is laughing along with Jesus as he or she intentionally follows Him in slipping on the banana peel of recognizing one’s own fallen humanity and voluntarily dying with Him in baptism in order to rejoice with Him when brought back out of the water as a royal (jovial) priest-king. Since confession is laughing at the ridiculousness of your own sinful rebellion because you’re a new person and on the other side of it, running this play on those who do not understand what is happening is cruel, dark, and leveling. Sending these little ones to the baptismal grave without their “getting it” is the kind of black comedy Saturn gravitates to when left to himself.

False baptisms create confusion and place a burden of law and accountability upon the shoulders of those who not only cannot bear it – like child soldiers or child brides – but also did not choose it. This is Father Time eating away at his kids with a spiritual responsibility they didn’t sign up for. Baptism is life to the “twice-born” but it is creeping death to the “once-born.” In dark seasons when children need comfort they are encouraged to look at a cold theological abstraction instead of their gifts, lest they become self-reliant. But “leaning” on a baptism you never chose, a rite which basically spiritualises everything natural, removes the opportunity to discover personally that the flesh isn’t enough. So an exhortation to “remember your baptism” is about as helpful as finding coal in your stocking. There’s nothing you can do with it. The true gospel paradox is that sinful children don’t need contemplation (law). They need Christmas.

Wilson (Not his Tamed Juggernaut) is on the Move

Doug Wilson is the jovial king of Christmas. He knows how to be merry. He knows how to enjoy the good things of life with a full heart. He has a tribe of joyful children and grandchildren to prove it. But this has nothing to do with paedobaptism and everything to do with faithful Christian parenting. It is a result of saturation love, not saturation water. It is of the gospel falling on soft ears, not water sprinkled on soft cranial tissue. It is a legacy of celebrating Christ’s birthday with gifts, not celebrating what family or church family you were born into by good fortune.

Of course, Wilson is not consciously boasting in his own blood or society, but his 20% counterfeit Saturnine covenantal theology is. Wilson’s children and grandchildren (the ones old enough to have spiritual eyes of faith) are believers not because they have looked in the mirror and seen a fake lion skin (bapcision) that some apish theology told them was Aslan. No, they believe because they have seen Aslan himself. And they have probably mostly seen Him not on but in and through their confessing father and mother who wear the royal robes of Christian witness.

Reaching for the Stars

Like I said, I want to be like Doug Wilson when I grow up. My aim is to go full-Wilson in life. I want to be a jolly and contemplative man with a grand and glorious legacy. I want five out of five stars! But to get there I must not go all-in Wilsonian. I find him too valuable and don’t want to lose his insights. So I will continue to follow him, staying close to the spirit of his work and the spirit of his person, but steering clear of those Saturnine traps of old age, fate, and flat irony which would cause me to miss out on the good faith of Jupiter: Christ in Wilson’s paradigms, the hope of glorious theology.

Anyone who has seen the film or the play Seven Brides for Seven Brothers knows that it is about seven wild backwoods men who become civilized through the process of learning to interact with women. But what makes it fascinating, and very biblical, is that it isnʼt just about seven brothers marrying seven women.

A guest post by Steven Opp

In Seven Brides, the story is about one brother, the “head”, or the Adam (which just happens to be the characterʼs name) getting married, and then his “body” of brothers following his example. This is the pluralization or spiritualization of man. It moves from a physical one-man to a sevenfold spiritual man.

I like to say theology is as easy as 1-2-3 because the Trinity is found everywhere, and it is the unseen reason why this musical works so well: it is tuned in at a very deep level to the shape of humanity and the ways in which we image God. Whenever you see three related concepts, you can probably bet they are Trinitarian. With the aid of what I hope is a familiar plot, let’s take a look at how the three persons of Trinity are expressed in four earthly domains. This will allow us to make some correspondences between the domains so we can hear how each of these realms “speaks” to the others. This probably sounds complicated and technical, but give it a go and you will see it is quite straightforward and intuitive.

Line 1:

Father

The first part of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is the “Father” section because it is a song of creation. The Father is the one who speaks the creation into being. Any story that starts with a man joyfully singing about what he is creating is a story that starts by showing a Father. And what is Adam creating here? “Pretty and trim”, “Heavenly eyes”—he basically sings his bride into existence and by the end of the song he has found exactly what he is singing about!

Priest

Among all the rude men Millie has encountered as a waitress, Adam is set apart/holy. He is covered in animal skins as one who is ready to sacrifice for her: “Iʼd swap my gun and Iʼd swap my mule… Ifʼn you would say ʻI doʼ”.

Physical

As mentioned, Adam is in animal skins. He is singing about Millieʼs physical beauty:

“Bless Your Beautiful Hide!” Like the first man, he looks around until he sees a mate suitable to him. The attraction between them is almost purely biological, love at first sight, as she doesnʼt know him from, well, Adam. Natural as natural can be!

Husband

The focus in this section is on Adam, as he is the one singing the opening number. This is in contrast to the following sections of the film.

Line 2:

Son

The heart of the film is the most “incarnational” part of the narrative. Millie, who really is the “savior” of the story, has left the heavenly town and is now living with “sinners,” the ruffian brothers. She wins their allegiance through serving them and disciples them in the ways of courtship. She teaches them to pray and to turn the other cheek.

King

While Millie rules the house in regards to social matters, Adam leads the brothers to war both in the barn-raising fight and is their Roman Emperor in their campaign to steal the “Sobbinʼ Women”.

Social

While the early scenes in the film focused on physical attraction and beautiful landscapes, the middle of the story is about the social interactions, mostly between the brothers and the women: dancing, kidnapping, fighting, reconciling, etc.

Wife

Besides the Sobbinʼ Women song, most of the screen time in this section is about Millie. She is the main character, and the center of the entire story is her rebuking of Adam for leading the charge to steal the girls. This is when the Pentecostal/bridal fire falls, as happens at the center of every good narrative.

An interesting side note about this fire falling: It divides the social construction of the brothers, separating head from body, as we see in the Ascension offering in Leviticus one, pictured in the ascension of Moses on Sinai, and fulfilled in the ascension of Christ. She has in effect circumcised the family. Adam decides to go up the mountain to the hunting cabin for the winter, while the brothers are banished to sleep in the barn.

Line 3:

Holy Spirit

Seven is a spiritual number. The seven married brothers at the end of the film represent the spiritual man, as opposed to the one physical father-man at the beginning. The spiritualizing of a man is the pluralization of a man. The Bible begins with a physical Adam and ends with the spiritual Adam who has seven spirits (Rev. 3:1, 4:5). His fruit, his multiplication, his “seed” is not merely physical or social but also ethical, a new animus, a new heart for a people.

Also, the Person of the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. The final section concerns reunification, the reunion of the women with their fathers, the town with the backwoods family, and Adam and Millie.

Prophet

As the Spirit is the bond between Father and Son, so the prophet is the link between priest and king. Prophets counsel kings about the things of God. Prophets also have insight into the future, and can move armies with words. Adam is a prophet when he tells the brothers that if they donʼt return the girls to their families that they will be in constant conflict with them for years to come. The brothers heed the words of the prophet.

Ethical

As the Spirit is the bond between the Father and Son, the ethical is the unity between physical and social. It is voluntarily synthesizing your nature and nurture for the greater good, and usually involves some kind of “giving back.” The brothers put their natural strength to use in an ethical quest to chase down the women who are running from their families in order to return them. This results in peace and finally in marriage, which is an expression of the ethical heart of any culture, combining the physical (sex) and social (covenant) to open the future (succession).

Child

This Spirit section is about connections. The connection between husband and wife is the children. It is the news that Adam has had a child which causes him to return and reconcile with Millie. Also, having his own child is what internally motivated Adam to tell his brothers not to use violence to defend their women since he now understands how the girlsʼ fathers felt when their daughters were taken. He now has the same spirit as the men of the city. He is no longer just a natural man, a man of the woods. He is now a civilized man, a man of the people.

(Note from Mike Bull: Steven wrote this post as a development of his insightful comments on a rant by Tim Bayly criticising a post by Rich Bledsoe, where Tim sadly fails to understand Rich before ridiculing him.)

See also A Titanic Reality.

by Steven Opp

I feel their eyes all over me
Itʼs lookinʼ like conspiracy
Iʼm outta friends that I can trust
Maybe theyʼre onto us!

- Needtobreathe: “Maybe Theyʼre Onto Us”

Everybody knows what the word “paranoid” means. Itʼs when somebody is irrationally afraid of something. People who are paranoid are always on the lookout for what might jump out and get them. Comedian Richard Lewis understands this: “Even at home, on my stationary exercise bike, I have a rearview mirror.”

But besides the fear aspect, which is really the result of the condition, the word paranoia can be expanded to mean craziness in general. In the Greek para = beside, and noia = mind. The meaning is that you are double-minded, beside yourself, or out of your mind (or gourd, which is more fun to say).

Now if weʼre honest, we can confess we are all a bit paranoid from time to time, and it never turns out well. It results in lashing out in fear at others, shooting from the hip at the first thing that moves. Chestertonʼs Gabriel Syme in The Man Who Was Thursday candidly speaks of the trigger-happy in all of us: “My reason is quite clear. I attack him rashly because I am afraid of him.”

The Voice in the Wilderness

Paranoia is the human condition. It is what drives sin. Douglas Wilson says that sin is insanity. Sin is broken-mindedness. No one is born free of paranoia because it goes back to Adam, whose first inclination after disobedience was to hide in the bushes from the only one who could help him. Fear of the unknown has plagued man ever since.

By the time of the incarnation things had gotten really bad. Israel was as paranoid as could be. To protect themselves the leadership had become OCD and concocted a bunch of scrupulous, superstitious rituals. And the craziness manifested itself in the sins of the people, who were characterized by tax collectors, prostitutes, and demoniacs, all double-minded in their own way.

John the Baptist and Jesus came along to wake everyone up because there was a kingdom about to come. Fully aware of the problem–paranoia/bad thinking–they declare the only possible prescription. What did the voice in the wilderness cry out? What did the Good Doctor order for paranoid Israel? One word: metanoia.

In the late nineteenth century an Episcopalian minister named Treadwell Walden wrote a book called The Great Meaning of Metanoia in which he very beautifully describes what this word means. It is a short but wonderful book which you can read for free online here.

For starters, meta = after, or change, and noia = mind. So it means an after-mind, a changed mind, a new mind. Remember, the disease is paranoia, a divided mind. The cure is metanoia unto a right mind.

Walden explains how the word had a meaning so rich and full that it is difficult to describe. It is a reprogramming of the whole self through the portal of the mind.

“The Mind has entered upon a new stage, upon something beyond… Metanoia is a state of mind after experience; the mental condition which has developed itself after an entirely new set of circumstances has encompassed and invaded the consciousness.”

Walden wrote his book because the Revised Version of the Bible had just been released and metanoia had been mistranslated again. Instead of using a word which communicated the full, positive, powerful meaning of metanoia, or even the surface meaning of “changed mind”, the same word from previous translations was again used which conveyed a very different idea. That word: repentance.

Penitence Wonʼt Do

A house divided against itself [paranoia]…
Would be better than this!
- The Lego Movie: Honest Abeʼs response to Emmetʼs self-deprecating speech

Walden explains how the word “repentance” comes from the Latin penitence, the root of which means pain. The “re” of repentance implies a revisiting of your pain. Hurt again for what you did! Think on the agony of your situation! Feel really bad about yourself, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

But metanoia, the word translators wrongly call repentance, has no such meaning, and neither John nor Jesus meant it to. Walden explains:

“Despite himself the reader hears the ʻRepent ye!ʼ of John the Baptist and of the Saviour, like a cry, a note of danger, full of terror, amid which the hearts of the people stood still, instead of what it really was, the invocation of a mind, heart, and life which should befit such a glad and glorious ʻchangeʼ as the kingdom of heaven on earth. If the call had really been ʻRepent ye!ʼ it would have been only an appeal to the feelings.”

But metanoia is not directly concerned with emotion. As Jim Wilson says in regards to the Gospel, “There are no bonus points for feeling bad.”

Repentance is not sufficient to deal with paranoia because it doesnʼt put the mind back together. It just sits in the gap and feels sad about what this broken mind has done. This just leads to more fear. Round and round it goes. Whatʼs needed is a new mind, a whole new way to see things which overcomes both the paranoia and the pain:

“Fear has no genuine ethical power. Sorrow has no sure ethical consequence. Excitement of any kind can bear, of itself, no ethical fruit. None of these can have respect with God. The only thing that can be regarded by Him is that which He has arranged everything to bring about in us: that spiritual perception of the right and the true which grows within and around a Mind that is being gradually educated up to the divine standard; the nature wide open in front, not only looking behind, and receiving the whole counsel of God, not a part of it; every faculty enlightened, every feeling inspired; the entire man engaged; conviction, not excitement; earnestness, not impulse; habitude, not paroxysm; the heart tempered by the understanding, the understanding warmed by the heart; this, the consummate and yet attainable condition, this, the Metanoia, lived alike by Master and disciple, this, the “Mind” of Christ, and made possible to all by the Spirit of God–this is not conveyed in the ʻRepent ye!ʼ of our gospels.”

Walden explains that the call to metanoia is not a call to feel bad when people already know what’s wrong. He gives the example of Acts where most translations say Peter told the people to repent. But the word there is metanoia, and he is not telling them to feel bad about what theyʼve done, to “re-pain”. He is telling them to change their minds, which is entirely different:

“How little the repent of our version takes in the compass of the counsel! They [Peter’s audience] had repented already, in the usual sense; they were deeply penitent, they were “pricked to the heart.” But Peter made them understand that compunction or any other like feeling was not all. Their minds must seize the new situation, so that God might send Him who was before proclaimed to them, Jesus Christ. They were to turn from ignorance to knowledge.”

And what was the new situation? The Heavenly Kingdom…

How Metanoia Changed the Mind of the World

Some sort of idea, as it were, was coming to reign in his mind—now for the whole of his life and unto ages of ages.
- Dostoevsky: The Brothers Karamazov

Metanoia is not about penitence, about suffering. Itʼs like what Bob Marley says about music: one good thing about metanoia: when it hits you, you feel no pain!

But it does hit you. And it hit the world in such a way that it was changed forever. Walden again:

“Did ever the world see so mighty and so radical a revolution as came upon it then? Judaism gave way to a universal religion. The Mosaic night broke into the dawn of the perfect day. The Fatherhood of God was revealed to all men, and the brotherhood with the Son of God! Now were they the sons of God! Partakers of the divine nature! This world was discovered to be within the boundaries of the other world, and death was merged into a resurrection of the dead! Righteousness and truth were to prevail, for the power of sin had been destroyed! And the efficacy of all this lay in the person of the Christ. It was He who gave all this light. The order of human life reversed itself in Him. All conduct was to flow from a spirit within, not by a law without. Selfishness was turned into self-surrender and self-sacrifice. The affections were to be set upon things above, not on things on the earth. The spirit was everything, the flesh profited nothing. In all human action was to be the consciousness of Eternity; in all intercourse of man with man no less than the magnanimity of God.”

The book is currently with the editor for a polish and will be available soon. Here’s a unique review from Steven Opp, who is actually quoted in the book, but don’t let his bias deter you. I still reckon the literary “riffs” are the Apostle Paul’s, not mine, so imagine it’s Paul up there on stage with a “drumitar” and a heart full of jazz.

Several years ago I went with my brother Ryan to see Béla Fleck and the Flecktones in concert. They are an instrumental fusion band consisting of a banjo, sax, bass, and “drumitar” (if you donʼt know what a drumitar is, go on youtube and find out!) As we waited for the curtains to open, I asked Ryan if he knew what songs theyʼd be playing. He said they would do some of their hits but that it would probably morph into a jam session. But not just any jam session. We would witness some of the worldʼs best jazz and bluegrass artists come together and just have some fun. “The truth is,” he said,“weʼre basically going to watch four really talented guys get on stage and play with their toys for a couple hours.” As the night unfolded, I realized he was right. And it was a great concert!

Reading a book by Michael Bull is like watching a Flecktones jam session. He gets up there with some funny looking instruments, opens his Bible, and starts making sounds. Before you know it you start nodding your head to the beat as he plays a tune you know youʼve heard before but never quite like this.

This time the song is Galatians. But before Bull starts jamming, he gives the audience a chance to look over his “toys” which he will be playing with. They are these funky boomerang-shaped gadgets he calls Covenant-Literary Templates. Somehow they appear similar yet different at the same time. But they all look a bit familiar, though you swear youʼve never seen one before. Before you can look too long, he opens up Galatians, grabs an instrument and begins to play.

As you listen to the familiar intro, you comfortably hum along. But then he takes it places you hadnʼt counted on and begin to wonder if he forgot to tune before the show. He plays a note that sounds like it came out of nowhere. The note is Achan. Yes, Achan, the guy who took a little off the top from the Jericho haul–how did he make it into the Galatians song? Then Bull gets back into the tune youʼre familiar with. “Oh well.” You think. “Maybe Iʼm the only one who noticed the flat note. Even the greatest musicians make mistakes now and then. Maybe heʼll retune at intermission.” But just as you have moved from giving him the benefit of the doubt, he does it again. This time with King Ahazʼs prophets. Another bad note. “Weʼre talking about Paul and the Judaizers, whereʼd these Baal worshipers come from?” As you ponder this, he does it again. And again. Now you begin to wonder if heʼs even playing the right song. The program says “Galatians,” but you keep finding yourself in the backwoods of your Bible, a long way from Jesus and Paul and the early Church. Who is this guy? What is this exotic stuff heʼs playing? No wonder people used to think jazz was the devilʼs music!

So you decide to ask him at intermission why he was destroying one of your favorite songs with these strange chords. “You have a very, um, interesting style. But I gotta ask you, why did you play that Esau chord in Chapter 2? I have the sheet music for Galatians at home and I donʼt see that anywhere on there.”

He answers: “Because I felt like it.”

You are aghast! “Because you felt like it? What kind of exegesis is that?”

He replies, “I knew the song of the Bible. Figured it didnʼt matter what octave I played it in, so long as I play the right note. Esau seemed to fit there. Howʼd it sound?”

You werenʼt ready for this. You think for a second…“It sounded okay, I guess, I just wasnʼt expecting that particular…”

“Keep listening,” he assures you. “See if it doesnʼt start to sound familiar. And try to relax.” He gets back on stage, picks up a new instrument and continues to jam.

As you listen again you decide to put your expectations of what Galatians is aside and just take his version for what it is. You decide to enjoy the melodies about the patriarchs and the law and Ezekiel at face value. You fold your program, which for whatever reason still says “Galatians” on it, and put it in your pocket. You allow yourself to sway to the music. Youʼre out on a Friday night and you are committed to having a good time.

Under this new resolve, the music begins to take you to a thousand places with as many ideas and insights, some of them familiar, some foreign. He plays a little ditty about Passover. Not what you bargained for but whatever, it sounds nice. Later he does a short solo… something about Lamech. Didnʼt see that coming, but the more you think about it, the more it seems to fit.

As the concert continues, it starts to sound more and more familiar. You realize that while this wasnʼt what you were expecting, he really was playing your cherished Galatians all along. That jam session was kinda fun, you decide. After the show you buy the CD. You listen to it several times. You realize you kind of like this version, not only of the song, but of this music making style itself. You donʼt mind the apparent diversions from the text into dustier parts of the Bible. While itʼs not the octaves youʼre used to, it really is all the right notes. It works. Then you begin to discover youʼve got a little jazz in your own hermeneutical soul. You start reading your Bible a little differently. You start to experiment. You pick up some of Bullʼs instruments and goof around with them. You have some fun…

Over time you realize that youʼve started to get pretty good at synthesizing beats from various angles. One day you remember something Bull said about the internalizing of the law, something about maturity, something about glory. You wonder if somehow youʼve moved that direction as youʼve become more jazzy of a Bible reader. But you donʼt think about that too long because you just thought of a new melody you want to try out.

You pick up a toy and start playing.

Back cover: Click for a larger image.

[This post contains detailed spoilers.]

James Bond: Everybody needs a hobby.
Silva: So, what’s yours?
James Bond: Resurrection.

In the late 60s and early 70s, the structures of traditional Western storytelling were deliberately omitted from “thinking” films. Bleak narratives reflected the randomness of life without faith. Movies were becoming formless and void.

Of course, this is a generalization. It does not apply to James Bond films, which have always followed the same formula. But as audiences grow more and more plot-savvy, a lot more ground can be covered in a lot less time. Events can be merely hinted at rather than being shown step by step. By now, we all know the tropes. Perhaps this is why storytelling is returning to carefully deliberated structure, and, in many cases, is quite consciously symbolic in nature. Moreover, the use of symbolism includes chiastic patterning. Westerners may hate the Bible, but we can’t bring ourselves to abandon an Alpha and Omega in our entertainment.

My friend Steven Opp cleverly traced Skyfall along the lines of biblical narrative. I’ve expanded on it a bit with the Creation/Covenant matrix. The story of M’s atonement for her sins follows a liturgical pattern that runs throughout the Bible. The movie is a story of Covenant renewal.

Besides the structure, we can see the biblical roles of father, mother, sons (true and false), and bride (true and false) very clearly in the relationships of authority. All are warriors but what sets the good apart from the evil is not the willingness to use violence or deception (which is exactly as it is in, say, the story of Jacob and Esau). It is their faith in a grand metanarrative where good triumphs, one which is worth any sacrifice, and their loyalty to their “ministerial” vows.

Each cycle is symmetrical (chiastic), and each cycle is also a microcosm of the whole, which is also symmetrical.

GENESIS – The Fall (Creation – Sabbath – Day 1)

Bond on a mission for M1 (Transcendence)
…..Bond with Eve: Rooftop chase in the field (Delegation)
……….Bond wrestles with a mercenary “angel” (Ethics)
……….for the lives of all other agents
…..At M1′s command, Eve shoots at the tangled men
…..and Bond falls from the sky (Sanctions)
Bond “drowns” in the river (Succession)

I guess the names Bond (Covenant) and Eve (mother of all the living) are significant here. Also notice the two “goats” of Atonement, on the rooftop of the train, passing “through” the dark tunnels. The blood of the martyred innocent “brother” becomes a legal witness.

EXODUS – Mother and Son “passed over” (Division – Passover – Day 2)

M2 pressures M1 to retire from her commission (Light and Dark)
…..M2 refuses, leaves, is saved (“passed over”) on a bridge (Waters)
……….MI6 building is blown up (Land)
……………Holed up by the sea, Bond’s eyes are opened (Rulers)
……….He returns to a relocated MI6, “resurrected” (Swarms)
…..Bond fails tests but M1 “passes over” his failure (Mediators)
M1 recommissions Bond behind the back of M2 (Rest)

The rivalry between two agents has led to rivalry between two “orders,” the old and the new. Like Bond, MI6 itself passes through a death and resurrection. But this is early on, so for the time being, the “new temple” remains in the ground, in the dark. Bond’s “wilderness” experience includes a drinking game with a scorpion. The “satanic” metal in the chest of the hero leads him into the next cycle: ascension, promise and betrothal.

LEVITICUS – Commission / Covenant (Ascension – Firstfruits – Day 3)

Shrapnel from Bond’s chest identifies the “angel” (Initiation)
…..Bond tracks the mercenary (across water) to Shanghai (Delegation)
……….Following Patrice’s trail of blood, Bond “ascends” with his “twin”
……….The compromised “bride” appears, a victim is “enthroned,”
……….the bait is unveiled, and the sacrifice is made (Ethics 1 – Ascension)
……………In the darkness, in the sky, amongst the neon lights,
……………Bond and Patrice wrestle once again. This time it is not the
……………man (Bond) who falls from the sky, but the angel.
……………(Ethics 2 – Testing)
……….With the windows broken, the man and the woman (Sévérine)
……….are rendered “naked” to each other. (Ethics 3 – Maturity)
…..A gambling chip exposes the mercenary’s employer (Sanctions)
whom Bond tracks to a dragon-themed Casino in Macau (Succession)

The clue at Division was metal cutting meat, a token of death. The clue at Ascension is a gambling chip, the price for the highrise assassination of a high flyer, a token from the temple of the dragon. Bond’s “ascension” under the elevator is interesting. It is almost as though he is holding onto Patrice’s heel.

NUMBERS – The Jealous Inspection (Testing – Pentecost – Day 4)

Bond approaches Sévérine for her employer’s identity
and fights dragons (human and reptilian) to escape the casino
…..With Sévérine, he travels by boat to Silva’s desolate island,
…..an abode stolen using a clever lie.
……….Bond is captured and tied to a chair (“enthroned” as a sacrifice).
……….Silva descends in an elevator to make an entrance. Here the brother/bride
……….theme is twisted into Silva’s taunts and sexual advance
……………The “Numbers” theme of the jealous inspection is played out in
……………the two men shooting a glass of liquor from Sévérine’s head.
……………Like the woman caught in adultery, she is a “guilty victim”
……………led the centre of the “legal” courtyard
……………Her true lover is the man who deliberately aimed to miss.
……….The troops show up just in time.
……….Now it is Silva who is incarcerated — underground at MI6.
……….He reveals his motives, his hatred for M (“mother”)
……….and escapes disguised as The Law.
…..Bond pursues Silva (Underground), while M, another woman,
…..is subjected to an enquiry. This time it is M who is “passed over”
…..as the serpent attacks
All eyes opened, Bond, M1 and M2 are now a united force.

The biblical themes and structures here are really extraordinary, and possibly quite deliberate. The name “Silva” comes from the Latin word “hiss,” and refers to a jungle or a forest of trees. And the cup of liquor on Sévérine’s head as she received two “shots” is beyond the pale (Numbers 5). Sévérine’s name possibly refers to her being “cut off” in the wilderness. Just as in the Garden of Eden, and the Book of Revelation, the dragon and the woman are right at the centre, stars in a dark sky (Day 4).

For those familiar with the pattern, we could expand the casino sequence into its own cycle as “Table.” It’s bloody, he seals the bond with Severine, there is a preliminary “filling” (lots of cash) and then he finishes it with “put everything on RED.” (See cycle 6 for the order of the Tabernacle furniture.)

DEUTERONOMY – Preparation for Battle (Maturity – Trumpets – Day 5)

With M at risk, Bond now calls the shots
…..He drives M to his icy home, Skyfall, leaving Silva a deceptive trail
……….They enlist the help of the wise old gamekeeper, Kincade
……….(“head of the pass”)
……………Only lightly armed, they work to booby trap the house
……………and plan their escape
……….Silva’s men arrive and are defeated, but M is wounded
…..Silva arrives from the sky, playing the Animals’ Boom Boom
…..from a loudspeaker
Bond sends M and Kincade through a tunnel at the back of a
priest’s hole to a chapel in the grounds

The themes at Maturity are mustering the troops, sharing of wisdom, and bridal music. It is also the establishment of a New Covenant. The old temples, the placed of childhood and training, vacated by the Spirit, are ready to come down to make way for a new order.

JOSHUA – The Walls Come Down (Conquest – Atonement – Day 6)

Silva sends fire from the sky and incendiary grenades into the
house (Ark of the Covenant)
…..Bond sets off gas canisters and escapes through the priest’s
…..hole into the tunnel, where he is passed over by the flames (Veil)
……….The resulting blast disables Silva’s helicopter which crashes into
……….the house, killing most of Silva’s men (Altar and Table)
……………Bond again wrestles with an angel, this time underwater
……………in an ice-covered lake (crystal sea/laver). He sets off a flare.
……………Silva sees Kincade’s torchlight in the chapel (Lampstand)
……….He forces his gun into M’s hand, and, eyes closed, begs her
……….to kill them both (Incense Altar)
…..Bond rescues M and “cuts” Silva with a knife (metal in the back)
…..(High Priest and sacrifices/Laver)
M’s continued bleeding causes her death. But her decision concerning
the recommissioning of Bond is vindicated. (Shekinah/Succession)

At Passover and Atonement (which match each other chiastically), the blood is presented in the dark. This is the sixth feast, the Day of Atonement, and Bond reminds Silva of his sick story of the two surviving rats. Here, they are the two sacrificial goats. One goes to heaven and the other to hell. Here, we also see M1 pass through the narrow gate and atone for her “sins.” The ascension of the bride from the old childhood house, over the crystal sea to the house of worship. Here, Bond is Joshua, crushing the serpent underfoot. In this film, he has lost everything (including his house — legally then physically), his car, and the one in his charge. All his past is gone in blood, fire and smoke. But as he says, “I never did like this place.”

The veil of flesh is torn, for Adam (true and false), for Eve (old and new), and for the serpent. The only one who is not bloodied is Abraham’s oldest servant, the one who took charge of the bride by the well, the Holy Spirit, Kincade.

JUDGES – Rule of the Champions (Glorification – Booths – Day 7)

Following M1′s funeral (Transcendence)
…..Eve introduced herself as Eve Moneypenny (Hierarchy)
……….She has retired from fieldwork (Ethics)
…..Bond enters the office of his new boss, M2 (Sanctions)
And when commissioned, says, “With pleasure.” (Succession)

We began with M, Bond and Eve, and we end with M, Bond and Eve, and Succession arrangements. The internal struggles of Israel are over, and she is now free again to minister to the nations (MI6 is the international security branch). Also, if you look carefully, you will see that every one of the seven structures is reflected in the whole.

If the movie resonates with us, and judging by the box office takings, it does, it is because it is a story we already know very well. The Bible does this all the time. Unfortunately, the current crop of scholars fails to study the Scriptures in this light and in this way, and consequently can’t make sense of a lot of things that would be plain to musicians, writers, artists—and filmmakers—who read the Bible.

M is for Martyrdom

Steven sent some other interesting observations:

Before seeing the new James Bond film Skyfall, I read a review by Zach Baron called “Cinematrics: Word is Bond”, which is quite interesting.

Baron suggests that the theme of the movie is the fall of imperialism (Skyfall). While I agree with his argument, I think the film can also be interpreted as being about the fall of Christendom in particular. Here’s why…

The central character in Skyfall is M, the older woman who runs the British secret service agency. Symbolically speaking, M is the mother figure of the organization and the agents are her children. Since, typologically the church is “mother” (Galatians 4:26, for example), M is therefore the Church in Skyfall. Let me suggest that her death in the little church building at the film’s climax symbolizes the end of Christendom.

The opening scene demonstrates Bond’s distaste for M’s seemingly callous disregard for an agent who is dying. Ten minutes later M orders Bond’s partner, Eve, to pull the trigger which ends up hitting Bond instead of the bad guy. Mother just “killed” her child, or, as the villain Raoul Silva later says, “Mommy was very bad.”

But why is Silva also angry at Mom? It turns out she had abandoned him to torture (or perhaps inquisition would be a better word) during a crusade for the release of other agents. Silva and Bond therefore have something in common: when the psychologist says “M” the first word coming to mind is “bitch.”

Meanwhile, M is being encouraged by the state to resign while the whole purpose of her organization is under scrutiny. The question at hand is this: In the new world of democracy, technology, and globalization in which everything is in the open, is her job really necessary? M finds her role as helper of the nation and mother of the secret agents being increasingly infringed upon by rigid bureaucracy, personified by the character Gareth Mallory who is closely observing her work.

M’s defence is that her organization’s job is still important in the “dark places,” the holes off the grid where terrorists can go undetected. After she is nearly killed by Silva, who has implored her to think on her sins, she finds she must also go into the darkness and out of sight as she goes with Bond to Skyfall in Scotland.

So far, M is a portrait of Christendom as she is brought into question in the modern world, is being usurped by statist bureaucracy, and is viciously attacked by her enemy who points out all her past mistakes. Like the church, she survives by escaping through a secret tunnel built during the Reformation, accompanied by a Scottish guide. Her final stand is in a little chapel building which Silva says is very fitting for the occasion of her demise.

After her death, M is replaced by Mallory; Mother Church is eclipsed by Father State; the spirit is replaced by bureaucracy.

In Skyfall, Bond finds himself in the same dilemma as the modern Christian: He’s been deeply wounded by “Mother Church” but still must be loyal to her and defend her from the apostates who want her to think on her sins and die. He finds his only other options are hedonism and despair and so the way for him to not be bored is to take up the hobby of resurrection. He must find a way to preserve his sense of purpose and importance under the impending bureaucratic system which is pushing out mother church’s protection of his unique style and abilities.

And he discovers he is most needed in the dark places.

Behold, when we come to the land, you shall bind this line of scarlet thread in the window from which you let us down… Joshua 2:18

Each Israelite was to wear blue tassels on the four corners of his robe. The tassel was a blue cord that unraveled into threads, a “one” that became many. Using the “systematic typology” of the Bible Matrix, we can see that these four blue tassels correspond to the four rivers the flowed down from the spring under the Garden of Eden. [1]

So, what’s the deal with the “red cord” that Rahab was commanded to display in her window in Jericho? Firstly, the Hebrew word isn’t the same word as the “cord” in Numbers 15.

The Hebrew word tiqvah literally means “hope.” Skip Moen writes:

Line – Usually translated “cord” in this verse, the Hebrew word tiqvah has a different meaning in every one of its additional thirty-one occurrences.  The fact that it isn’t translated in the normal way in this verse isn’t an accident. It’s an intentional word-play; another example of the elaborate interconnections found in the Hebrew Scripture that are invisible to us in English. By now you must realize that the story of the Scripture just wasn’t written to you.  It was written to Hebrew readers because only Hebrew readers can read between the lines.

Tiqvah is usually translated “hope.”  Put this background into the story of Rahab and you will come away with a much deeper understanding of this event. The spies whom Rahab saves tell her to put a scarlet “cord” in her window. What does that cord mean? It means hope, the very same word.

Naomi uses it in Ruth 1:12. Moen again:

When Naomi uses this word, she doesn’t have the projection of future desires in mind.  She is thinking about the color scarlet.  What does scarlet have to do with hope? Frymer-Kensky points out that tiqvah is the Hebrew word meaning “thread” in the story of Rahab.  “The imagery in this idiom suggests that our life is spun out like a cord, and hope arises from the strength of that cord, representing the prospect of a viable future.” [2]  She goes on to show that hope in Hebrew thought is intimately connected with life here and now.  To have a future is to not be cut off. To have a future is to see the continuation of your name in the lives of your offspring.  Tiqvah hope has nothing to do with getting to heaven. It is all about having a legacy on earth. It’s about a scarlet cord that can’t be cut.

Firstly, we must deal with two kinds of cleansing, the “red” and the “blue.” Blood and water both cleansed from sin, but their roles correspond to the “forming and filling” process in Genesis 1. (Even within the “blood” division, there is both red and blue blood, a chiastic structure within the body.) Blood is a witness to the de-forming of the old order. Like circumcision, it cuts off the past. We can think of this as Jesus paying off our incalculable debt to God. “It is finished.” This is mercy. Water is a witness to the investiture of a new order, the “filling up” of the new order. Unlike the “red ink” of correction, water writes a check for us in “blue ink.” It begins a new era. This is grace.

Water and blood are both liquids required for life. One comes out of the body and one goes into the body. The Jews were the blood, the circumcision, the genealogy of Christ, the Land rising out of the water. The Gentiles were the water, the baptism, the office of Christ, brought into the household of faith in the first century to bring new life to the Old Covenant body. The body of Christ is one new man, made up of Jew and Gentile, blood and water. [3]

Red and blue also have to do with heads and bodies. Circumcision is red and baptism is blue. In the Bible Matrix, the crossing of the Red Sea corresponds to Passover (the killing of the firstborn “heads”), while the crossing of the Jordan River is baptism, and associated with the Day of Atonement. [4] Now, there is red and blue in both these events, but when viewed as a whole, the first cleansing is about the end of the old history (the old leaven) and the second is about a new history, a heavenly land. Thus, red has to do with “generations,” the setting apart of a genealogical line. It is about the flesh. This is the blood of the sacrificial system. And blue has to do with “regenerations,” the commission of members of that genealogical line. It is about the Spirit.

Now we can see the correspondence between the four heavenly blue wings on an Israelite’s robe, and the four earthly red horns on the Tabernacle Altars. The blood is male (generation – Head), but the Israelite robe was worn by males and females (regeneration – Body).

Interestingly, in the account of the woman with the “issue of blood,” it is Jesus who is “blue” and the woman “red.” This is the interface between the cleanliness of a regenerate, commissioned (baptized) Adam and a helpless “generate” (menstrual) Eve.

Jesus
RED -  Circumcision and circumcised heart
BLUE – Baptism and Spirit-filling

TOUCH

(Daughter) Israel
RED – Issue of blood
BLUE – Forgiveness and cleansing,
the resultant healing from His “wings.” [5]

If Adam was faithful in the Garden, his offspring would have been rivers of living water. The singular red thread of Adamic obedience results in a corporate holiness, a blue cord that multiplies into a tassel. Peter Leithart writes:

In his lecture at the Biblical Horizons Summer conference this morning, Jim Jordan pointed out that the rivers that flow out of Eden are connected with commerce and economy.  The rivers flow from the garden, where there are good things to eat, to the outer lands where there are minerals and gems.

This can serve as a further gloss on my discussion of Psalm 24 earlier today: Rivers are the “foundations” of the humanly organized world, and more particularly rivers are the cords that bind land to land with trade and commerce.  Rivers are not only the foundation of a single land or culture, but of a network of cultures. [6]

The “binding” of the red differs from the “binding” of the blue. It is more a process of “binding and loosing.” Adam, or Isaac, is bound with a red cord in hope. It is a sacrificial death on the altar. It is flesh. The blue tassels are the “loosing,” the freedom of unity of Spirit. [7] It is perhaps more fitting to say that people are bound by blood but united by water. The first is objective, the last is subjective. The first is legal. The last is love. Circumcision was one nation, a bloodied, closed, earthly door (on the ground). Baptism is all nations. It is the Messianic “cord of hope” within a four-cornered open (blue) window in the wall of a city. [8] Rahab became intertwined with the Messianic cord (Matthew 1) that would eventually lead to rivers of living water, tassels of Spirit flowing from the four horns of Israel to the four “wings” of the world.

All Israel was a “bridal” nation. The males were circumcised, but since the other commands concerning clothing cover all Israelites, we can assume both males and females wore the bridal robe, just as both males and females could take the Nazirite vow. This brings us to part 3, which concerns Israel’s Covenantal vow. This is where the sorry arguments for paedobaptism unravel.

There’s an interesting use of red and blue in this music video. Every time I watch it I see something new.

_________________________________
[1] See Healing in His … Tassels? You will also find some interesting facts here.
[2] Tamara Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Ruth: The JPS Bible Commentary, p. 15.
[3] See The Water and the Blood.
[4] Steven Opp has some interesting thoughts on red and blue in his paper “Heads or Tails: A Colorful Commentary.”
[5] See Border Patrol.
[6] Peter Leithart, More On Rivers. Perhaps Dr. Leithart’s mention of water binding rather than uniting reflects his ideas on “objective” baptism. Genealogy is not a choice. But commerce is a choice. One is not bound by rivers but loosed.
[7] See Binding and Loosing.
[8] See Known in the Gates.

The word apocalypse does not denote the end of the world. It is literally a revelation, a revealing.

In his Pauline Theology paper, It’s the end of the flesh as we know it! A comparison of circumcision & apocalypse (2010), Steven Opp provides support for the identification of the book of Revelation as a Covenant lawsuit. Christ was circumcised, then Christ Himself was cut off. Israel was circumcised in Christ, then, in AD70, after decades of apostolic gospel witness, unbelieving Old Covenant Israel and its Temple worship, overseen by “the mutilation,” were cut off. On the final Day of Coverings, the flesh was exposed.

Opp makes a helpful connection between the “uncoverings” of circumcision and apocalypse in Galatians:

First, what is circumcision, and what does it mean? It is, of course, the removal of the foreskin of the penis, a cutting, resulting in blood [Exodus 4:24-26]. James Jordan suggests that this ritual simultaneously symbolizes three realities:

1. A sign of death and resurrection. Circumcision is a symbolic castration. To cut off part of your penis signifies cutting off the whole thing, yet the circumcised man is still fertile. Peter Leithart explains in a blog how in the ancient world, patriarchs were depicted as being endowed with enormous genitalia. [2] The bigger the member, the more fatherly/fertile the man. By removing part of his genitals, Abraham was thereby entering into death by losing part of his life-giving organ, and resurrected by being able to reproduce.

2. The removal of shameful clothing. This “implies that the man who is naked before God is truly clothed.” [3] Jordan provides the example of Adam and Eve creating coverings of leaves which God removes. Men must confess their sins and be naked before God in order to be covered and glorified.

3. The removal of a block or hindrance. The example given for this is Abram not being able to have children until the hindrance is removed through circumcision. His circumcision also removes Sarai’s hindrance as his circumcision is imputed to her.

Jordan goes on to explain how these three meanings of circumcision also apply to the ear, hand, and foot, which are all symbolically circumcised by blood being applied to each place on the priest (Leviticus 8:23). Finally, Jordan tells how Jesus was ultimately cut for us via his crucifixion, where his body was torn, and this action fulfilled all three meanings of circumcision in the atonement…

Two of the main themes in Paul, and especially in Galatians, are the ideas of circumcision and apocalypse. [4] But is there a connection? Are the two concepts opposites? Is one a fulfillment of the other? Or are they not related at all? I am suggesting that apocalypse is in some sense a new sort of circumcision, a circumcision of the old order of circumcision/uncircumcision.

Let us use Jordan’s three-part definition of circumcision to structure our discussion of the connections between circumcision and apocalypse.

The first definition of circumcision which he gives is that it is a sign of death and resurrection. In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul speaks of his revelation which he had which saved him. In verses 11-12 he says, “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation (apokalypsis) of Jesus Christ.”

A few verses later in 15-16 Paul explains how “…when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal (apokalypto) His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh (sarx) and blood…”

Paul uses apokalypsis again in 2:2: “And I went up by revelation (apokalypsis), and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles…”

Paul’s defense of his ministry is his revelation of Christ. This is what saved him and what legitimizes his apostleship (1:12), message (1:15), and itinerary (2:2). In chapters 3 and 4, Paul lays out an argument contrasting the gospel against circumcision, using the “oppositional columns” [5] of law vs. Spirit, Jerusalem below vs. Jerusalem above, Ishmael vs. Isaac, and works vs. faith. In all of these dichotomies, Paul places himself and his gospel on the side of Abraham. Abraham, of course, is the first circumcised man (at least mentioned in the Bible). He is the poster boy of circumcision, the grand archetype. Paul, the man whose trademark is not circumcision but apocalypse, nevertheless associates himself with Abraham.

G. Walter Hansen explains the similarities between Paul and Abraham in Galatians:

“Paul’s story (1:11-21) and the Abraham story (3:6-4:11) present parallel paradigms to prepare the way for the request in 4:12. As Paul’s life was transformed by his faith in the gospel, so Abraham was characterized by his faith in the gospel given to him in the promise (3:6-9). In both stories the same features of the gospel are disclosed: the revelatory origin of the gospel, the blessing for Gentiles in the gospel, and the exclusion of Jewishness as the basis for the inclusion of Gentiles. At the center of both Paul’s own story (1:11-2:21) and the story of Abraham (3:6-4:11) is the story of Christ.” [6]

Paul’s command to the Galatians is to become like him, in contrast to the false teachers who are commanding the Galatians to become like them. The latter demand circumcision, while the former calls for faith. And Paul’s whole argument about the legitimacy of his message is that he had an apocalypse.

Returning to Jordan’s first definition of circumcision being a death and resurrection, what we find is that just as Abraham’s circumcision resulted in a new man (with a new name) and a new nation, so Paul’s apocalypse results in a new man (also with a changed name) and a new church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, a whole new system. Abraham symbolically died when he was circumcised; as mentioned above, he was symbolically castrated. Paul also died when he converted. The resurrected Paul says in Galatians 6:14 “But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

If you’d like to read the entire paper, contact me and I will pass on your request to Steven.

_____________________________
[1] Peter Leithart. “Father Abraham.” November 9, 2010. http://www.leithart.com/2010/11/09/father-abraham.
[2] James Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 78-84.
[3] James Jordan, The Law of the Covenant, 79.
[4] A third major theme in Galatians is table fellowship. This theme connects with the other two (circumcision of the flesh and apocalypse) as broken bread is the flesh (sarx) of Christ (John 6:51), and when bread is broken, eyes are opened and Christ is revealed (Luke 24:30-31).
[5] Martyn, Galatians, 449-450.
[6] G. Walter Hansen, “A Paradigm of the Apocalypse: The Gospel in the Light of Epistolary Analysis,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.), 146-147.