The Death of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah

The heart of typology is representation, and representation is the heart of sacrifice.

A great deal of so-called theology seems to me to be a waste of time, breath and ink. Theologians and commentators insist on applying a “lens” to Scripture, or building a case from cherry-picked particulars or accumulations of fragmented data, when the answer to the debated question is staring right back at them. Literary structure should be the first recourse, not the last. When it comes to the Bible, literary structure is the label on the tin.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me… (Jonah 2:5)

The Errant Typology of Baptismal Sprinkling

The Bible is an incredibly complex book, however it is also an incredibly consistent book. Its symbolism is a language, which means that although it is flexible enough to allow for new combinations, it has a core which remains steadfast from Genesis to Revelation. This means that, just as we have no excuse for refusing to read this book of types for what it is, we also have no excuse for misusing its types to support any otherwise unsupportable dogma.

I have yet to figure out why some denominations are terrible at biblical typology and others are very good at it. In Sydney, Australia, the Presbyterians and Anglicans are both extremely solid and evangelical, and often work together. Yet, when it comes to typological studies and awareness, there is a world of difference. Talking to a Moore College graduate about typology is like having a conversation with a horse. In this case, it’s probably a thoroughbred, but it simply does not have the faculty for the language in its DNA. It will just look at you with those big horse eyes as if you have not said anything, or are from another planet where humans expect to have conversations with horses. However, if you speak to a Presbyterian, such as my learned friend Doug, tapping away at his PhD and tutoring university students in Hebrew, he will not only pick up the conversation and respond, he will even call out the minimalist Moore mentality as a form of gnosticism like my Presbyterian friends do in the USA.

They are not allowing the text to shape their doctrine. They are shaping the text to suit their doctrine.

So, my question is this: How can people who are so quick on the uptake when it comes to biblical types get things so wrong when it comes to baptism?

The answer is that they have a doctrine, a tradition, and they go looking for typological support for it. This is exactly what the Roman Catholic theologians do, and some of them are mighty fine, too.¹See Mother Of Invention. But they, like the Presbyterians, are not allowing the text to shape their doctrine. They are shaping the text to suit their doctrine. This is something of which we are all guilty at times, because it is impossible to read any text without coming at it with some assumptions. The good thing about the global Church is that when a theologian or theological school does this, there will be somebody else in Christendom who will stick it to them.

A fine example of the myopia of my Biblical Horizons friends begins with an article by James R. Rogers concerning the difficult subject of “baptism for the dead” in 1 Corinthians 15:29.²James R. Rogers, Baptism for the Dead, Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 76, 1995. As I have written elsewhere, it is a good article, finding the solution to the problem within the Canon rather than outside of it. This awareness of the integrity of the Bible is something I have appreciated about the Biblical Horizons crowd very much. But what does Rogers do when he gets to Numbers 19? He focusses on the act of sprinkling the water of purification on the defiled persons, and entirely overlooks the washing of the clothes and bodies of the priests who carry out the rite!

How does he get this so wrong? The answer is that he is looking for evidence for a cleansing by sprinkling rather than a cleansing by submersion. He is blinded by the unsupported assumptions of Reformed Theology, and seems unaware of anything else in the text that might challenge those assumptions. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Biblical Horizons gents call out other theologians on. As David T. Gordon so succinctly describes in his Why Johnny Can’t Preach³Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers, we prevent the texts from speaking to us, and make them instead a “response,” an opaque source of support for what we already know,  an “Amen” bench. The Bible itself is censored by our assumptions. This is no more apparent than in the often bewildering statements concerning baptism from my theological betters. It is one thing to ignore an ignorant baptist (or Sydney Anglican) concerning the typology of baptism. It is quite another to ignore the Scriptures themselves. Numbers 19 supported part of what Rogers wanted to prove, but he moved his very selective spotlight before it could protest against his conclusion concerning sprinkling.

Baptism and Creation

If I still have your attention, the example I would like to deal with is a recent blog post by the formidable Joshua Luper over at Kuyperian Commentary, entitled Living Water: Foundations of Baptism in Creation.⁴Living Water: Foundations of Baptism in Creation and a comment by my friend Dustin Messer. Luper writes:

Why do we baptize with water? Since Scripture gives us a water ritual to perform, the element used in that ritual must contain some essential significance. How might we deepen our understanding of baptism by reflecting on the element of water?

One way to fill out our understanding of the waters of baptism would be to reflect on the import of water in our everyday experience, then apply those insights to baptism. Typically, reflection on the elements of the rite of baptism centers on the cleansing properties of water. Water washes away dirt and impurity. Water aids healing. This is quite true, and an important component of our understanding of baptism. This is also something readily discerned from Scripture (especially the law). However, the role of water as a cleansing agent doesn’t really emerge in Scripture until the time of the flood (at the earliest). Yet we read plenty about water in just the first two chapters of Genesis.

He goes on to note the connection between the Holy Spirit and water, the fact that life on earth is sustained and surrounded by water, that the waters are the first place that living creatures appear, and that water nourishes the Garden of Eden and the lands beyond.

Scripture has much to teach us about the role of water in the story of redemption, but our brief survey shows that the creational waters are a primal element, a source of life, and a subject of God’s special attention. Water is a gift, nurturing and sustaining the life of the world. And when we see water and the Spirit of God together, we should expect that the creative power of God is about to be unleashed. The Spirit hovering over the waters, forming structure and giving life – this is the rich creational and symbolic context of baptism.

There is a lot of wonderful truth here, and there are some excellent articles concerning baptism on that site by Joshua Torrey. But as was the case with Rogers’ article, some crucial relationships are either overlooked or their significance is not understood. Although Luper does not mention sprinkling, my friend Messer does. He writes:

Micah 5 is a good example of how water is used in Scripture. In 5:7 the remnant (i.e. Christians) are “like dew/rain on the grass” which doesn’t “wait on man.” I take Micah’s point to be that the New Covenant members are like dew/rain in that they are brought about by God, not by man. It is fitting, then, that this “water people” will be marked by water! In this passage, water is used to contrast the efforts of God with the efforts of man. Applied to baptism, this helps us see that the baptismal water does not find its power, authority, or origin in the efforts of any man, even the one administering the sacrament. No, it’s dew, it’s rain, it’s water, it’s from God!

This sounds wonderful, but Micah is dealing with the people of the Land. The relationship, and thus the typology, of water to the Land is very different from that of water to the Sea, at least where people are concerned.

Springs, Rivers and the Sea

Water “sprinkling” from above is definitely a sign of God’s pleasure, but it is related to the fruit of the Land and indirectly the fruit of the womb. According to His word, God would bless Canaan with “sprinkling rain” as a testimony to surrounding nations that Israel was cleansed from her idolatries. This is a favourite verse of “baptismal sprinklers,” but the context is clearly related to the fruitfulness of the Land.

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (Ezekiel 36:22-25)

To use this verse as support for a practice never described in the actual baptism passages in the New Testament is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst. We are called to better things, especially those of us who are teachers of doctrine. It is interesting that sprinkling is also related to idolatry in the details of the description of the death of Jezebel, which reveal the sacrificial nature of the slaughter.

He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down. And some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. (2 Kings 9:33)

The blood of the source of Israel’s idolatry is spattered, or “sprinkled” on the very symbols of city and empire, that Israel herself might not be judged as a harlot, her walls bloodied and her offspring dashed against the rocks by foreign troops. The life which she had would be preserved, as is always the case with sprinkling. But baptism is not about preserving life, which is where Rogers, and all my friends at Kuyperian Commentary, go off the rails. Rogers writes:

A person who comes in contact with a dead person, or shares the same roof with a dead person, had death communicated to him, and so needed to undergo the baptism of the water/ashes before being permitted to rejoin the living in the assembly of God. This should be a familiar theme to Christians, because baptism in fact marks the Christian’s resurrection from death to life. This is the burden of Paul’s argument in Romans 6:3-9 and Colossians 2:12. That is, in baptism we are united with the death of Jesus Christ, and so partake of the resurrection of our Lord. We move from death to life in baptism, just as the Hebrews portrayed the movement from death to life in the baptism of the sprinkled heifer ashes.

Rogers identifies those sprinkled with New Covenant baptizands, when in fact it was those who had “passed through” the Laver (the sacrifices and the priests whom they represented) who were immersed, submerged, on their behalf, about whom Paul is likely speaking, because it is most consistent with the biblical types. This is not a small thing which has been overlooked. Although Israel was a priestly nation, being circumcised, that “sprinkling” of blood and the establishment of the Levitical sacrifices were related to the Land and the womb (which explains why Leviticus is so often strange to our ears). It was only the priesthood and sacrifices “washed” in the waters of the Laver, the Edenic spring, which were given access to the Sanctuary. The main point here is that the “movement from death to life” for those sprinkled in Numbers 19 is not the same as it is for those baptised in these Pauline texts. How can I say this? Well, it is obvious if we are not wearing the goggles of a sacramentalist. Sprinkling enables the preservation of the old life. Immersion is the instrument of its extinction.

Sprinkling enables the preservation of the old life. Immersion is the instrument of its extinction.

Preservation or Extinction?

In terms of sacred architecture, sprinkling has nothing to do with the Garden, which has its own source of water, the Laver, the waters above, picturing the Transcendent life of God, or with the World, the unconquered and unconquerable nations, which were a wild “Sea,” the waters below, an instrument of death.

Sprinkling is related to the Mediators between the Garden and the World, between God and the nations, the fruit of the Land, which is why sprinkling relates to the Abrahamic Covenant, and also almost invariably involved some kind of mediatorial death. The act of sprinkling is either the sprinkling of blood or of water containing “death” (the ashes of a heifer, Numbers 19) that life on the Land might continue. It is an act of preservation which temporarily purifies the flesh, halting the spread of death.

However, when Israel disobeyed God, the waters above were reunited with the waters below, symbolically-speaking, and at Yahweh’s command the Land was submerged beneath Gentile armies. When the Gentile armies were mustering, this was not an act of preservation but extinction. Sprinkled water brings cleansing that preserves life. A flood brings a cleansing that extinguishes it. Genesis describes the fact that the flood waters rose higher than the tops of the mountains for a reason: all flesh was extinguished, all life that had “breath.”

We can observe this symbolism in the Lord’s warning to Jerusalem concerning the invasion of the armies of Assyria, where the waters of life (from above) would be replaced with the waters of death (from below):

 The Lord spoke to me again: “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” (Isaiah 8:5-8)

Only Jerusalem would be spared from trampling by Assyria, its walls being the level of the “neck,” above which the “breath” of Judah be preserved, and not be cut off. Only the mountain of God would remain above the rising waters of judgment.⁵Of course, when Israel crossed the similarly overflowing Jordan, it was Israel serving as Yahweh’s instrument of judgment upon the idolaters in Canaan.

This explains the strange symbolism contained in the prayer of Jonah (chapter 2), offered inside the fish. Why is it that “sprinklers” never relate this language to Jesus’ baptism, seeing as He Himself said His death and burial would be “the sign of Jonah”? The mind boggles. It is a chiastic song of death and resurrection. I quote it in full, not that you might skim over it, but that you might suffocate on the inescapable symbols of death-by-immersion:

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish, saying,

“I called out to the Lord, out of my distress,
and he answered me;
out of the belly of Sheol I cried,
and you heard my voice.
For you cast me into the deep,
into the heart of the seas,
and the flood surrounded me;
all your waves and your billows
passed over me.
Then I said, ‘I am driven away
from your sight;
yet I shall again look
upon your holy temple.’
The waters closed in over me to take my life;
the deep surrounded me;
weeds were wrapped about my head
at the roots of the mountains.
I went down to the land
whose bars closed upon me forever;
yet you brought up my life from the pit,
O Lord my God.
When my life was fainting away,
I remembered the Lord,
and my prayer came to you,
into your holy temple.
Those who pay regard to vain idols
forsake their hope of steadfast love.
But I with the voice of thanksgiving
will sacrifice to you;
what I have vowed I will pay.
Salvation belongs to the Lord!”

And the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah out upon the dry land.

The point of Jonah’s miraculous deliverance (and delivery!) is not merely that God could get him from the ship to dry land. The point is that God would preserve a faithful Israelite (Land) prophet in his ministry to the (Sea) nations. All the Sea Beasts are at His command, as He often reminds us in passages which pass right over the heads of not only Sydney Anglicans, but stubborn paedobaptists.

The New Testament moves the action from the Land to the Sea, from Israel to the nations, from shepherds to fishermen, from dominion over the Land to dominion over the Sea. The Gentile nations come from the Sea, but the obedient ones are Land animals (Daniel 7). Jesus walks on water, not to show off, but to picture His power over both the Social deep (the Gentile nations) and the Physical deep (the grave). When He says that “this mountain” (Zion) would be cast into the Sea, He was promising to do what He did when He brought the Babylonian armies against Jerusalem. The flood waters would rise above the neck, and all life in the old Jerusalem would be extinguished.

Under the Old Covenant, the water was in the vessel. Under the New Covenant, the vessel is in the water.

1 Peter 3:21 alludes to the Great Flood as a baptism. “Baptism now delivers you,” giving the baptizand a clear conscience before the God who looks upon the heart, as He did upon the blameless heart of His perfect Son at His own baptism. The only way it can achieve this for sinners is through the extinction of the old life, not through its preservation. Baptism is not about the mitigation of death, as was sprinkling.⁶Some will no doubt quote Hebrews 10:22, “…let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water,” but even this text differentiates between the “Adamic” heart (sprinkling) and the “Evian” body (washing). So they are merely seeing what they wish to see, and not really thinking in biblical typological terms. It amazes me that a denomination that speaks so much about “the baptised body” persists in sprinkling water on the head, and nobody bats an eyelid. As Joshua Luper describes, water is the source of life, but in biblical typology, the waters below the dove do not denote a preservation of life, but a testimony to the end of all flesh, and a new Creation.

The mediatory Land was cut off. All that remains of the Land is the resurrection body of Christ in heaven. Christ was the fruit of the Land and womb, and He now offers these to us as finished products, bread and wine from God’s table. Infant baptism and the sprinkling of water, however, are both Abrahamic, a fertility rite, a strange hybrid fusing the preservation of the fruit of the Land with the fruit of the womb — the old, carnal life. These have no place in the New Covenant, since the kingdom of Christ is all about His resurrection from the dead, and His dominion over the Sea.⁷See Walking On Water.

If your baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, was a sprinkling, you have not been baptised as Jesus was. You have not followed Him in what should be the first step of obedience.

Under the Old Covenant, the water was in the vessel (on the Land). Under the New Covenant, the vessel is in the water (in the Sea).

Jesus’ reference to Daniel 7 in Matthew 26:64 (and Mark 14:62) is a source of some confusion. To figure out what is actually going on in Daniel’s vision, we have to go back to Leviticus 16. James Jordan writes:

…when Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man,” He is referring to Ezekiel, not to Daniel 7 (except perhaps indirectly). Jesus is the Greater Ezekiel. Christians are those who are “like the Son of Man,” like Jesus.

The Day of Coverings: Coming With Heavenly Clouds

Turning from Ezekiel, there is another passage in the Bible with which the Jews were very familiar, that is farther in the background of Daniel 7, and that is Leviticus 16. On the Day of Coverings (of “Atonement” in English Bibles), the High Priest took off his glorious garments and dressed simply in linen in order to remove the sins of the people once a year. Then, after finishing this work, he was reinvested with glory, and once again took up his position as spiritual ruler of Israel.

Two coverings happened on the Day of Coverings. First, the Ark-Cover was sprinkled and thereby covered with blood. This was a covering for propitiation, justification. Then the High Priest put back on his garments of glory and beauty. This was a covering for glorification.

Now, removing sins is not in view on Daniel 7, but other aspects of the ritual are. We have seen that Ezekiel was a kind of high priest, and it follows that in Ezekiel “son of man” is a title for the High Priest, the spiritual ruler of God’s people. Adam was priest in the Garden of Eden, and the “son of adam” is a new Adam, ruling in the symbolic sanctuary garden of the Tabernacle and Temple. Hence, “son of Adam” or “New Adam” is entirely appropriate as a title for the Chief Priest of God’s sanctuary.

An examination of the ritual in Leviticus 16 will clarify aspects of Daniel 7 for us, aspects that would have been much clearer to Daniel and his friends who “meditated on the law day and night” and who had observed this ritual annually before they were deported to Babylon.

The ritual is delineated in Leviticus 16. We read in verses 12–14 that the High Priest was to take coals from the fire of the Bronze Altar in the Courtyard. Then he was to fill the hollow of both his hands with incense, place it upon the coals, and carry this incense into the Holy of Holies directly before Ark-Throne of Yahweh. This incense was most holy, or “holy of holy” (Exodus 30:34–38). Its ingredients were prescribed by God and it was used only in the Tabernacle/Temple, which was a symbolic model of God’s heavens. The cloud of incense, thus, was a symbolic cloud of the heavens. Being “most holy” this incense could travel into the Most Holy room. [1]

As the High Priest walked from the Altar on the earth upwards (symbolically) through the heavens and into the highest heavens, he did so accompanied by this heavenly cloud. Inside the Holy of Holies, the High Priest held the incense pan in one hand, and a bowl of blood in his other hand, from which he flicked with his finger blood toward the Ark-Throne. This blood was to cover his sins and those of the other priests (Leviticus 16:11).

After this, as a second ritual, the High Priest did the same thing with a goat slain for the sins of the people, taking incense into the Holy of Holies and sprinkling the blood of the goat before the Ark-Throne (Leviticus 16:15).

After all the rituals were completed, the High Priest took off the garments he had been wearing, and put back on his garments of glory and beauty (Leviticus 16:23–24). These garments included the twelve tribes engraven on his shoulder stones and also on his twelve-stoned breastplate. In other words, the High Priest was given the kingdom on the Day of Coverings — he put the kingdom back on himself.

Now if we look back at Daniel 7:13–14, we see the same sequence. We see someone like Ezekiel, who was a kind of high priest for the exilic community. This High Priest approaches Yahweh with the clouds of heaven. Then he is given a kingdom that will never pass away.

We must remember that the High Priest represented the people. The High Priest is the son of man, and the people are those who are like this son of man. In Leviticus 16, the High Priest comes with heavenly incense clouds first for himself, and then he comes a second time for the people. Thus, there are two cloudy ascensions in Leviticus 16, the first of the son of man, and the second of those who are like the son of man.

In Daniel 7:13, the one like a son of man does not come riding upon heavenly clouds. He is not a cloud-rider. He is not a “divine figure.” No, he comes with heavenly clouds, and can be recognized as the High Priest, or rather, as those who are like the High Priest. In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days, the Cloud-Rider, has already arrived.

We are not surprised, then, to read that the one like a son of man is identified not with any particular person, such as the coming Messiah, but with the saints (Daniel 7:18, 22, 25). Now, Daniel would not have been aware that the Messiah would be the incarnate Yahweh. Hence, he might well have seen the one like a son of man as the Messiah coming to Yahweh to receive the kingdom. That is, Daniel could have seen this figure as both the people and their Messianic head. At the same time, as we have seen, the clear allusions to Leviticus 16 might have complicated things for Daniel, because there are two ascensions, one of the son of man and one of the people of the son of man. We, however, cannot be confused. The Ancient of Days is Yahweh, and taking his seat must be the ascension of Jesus and the opening of the books seen in Revelation 4–7. The one like a son of man, like Jesus, is the saints, who ascend to receive the kingdom in the year AD 70.

For Christians today it is not so clear, because the background of Daniel 7 in Ezekiel and in Leviticus 16 is not well understood. They see Jesus ascending to heaven in the clouds (Acts 1:9) and they think that is all there is to it, forgetting the second cloudy ascension in Leviticus 16. But Leviticus 16 makes clear that first the High Priest ascends in a heavenly cloud, and then afterwards the people (represented by the goats and the High Priest) ascend.

Similarly, Christians have been too quick to read the various statements in the New Testament about the “son of man coming in/with clouds” to refer to Jesus Himself. In some passages this may be the case, since Jesus is the Son of Man and He did ascend in the clouds. But in other passages, it seems that it is the second ascension, that of the saints, that is in view. We shall conclude this chapter by examining these passages.

_______________________________________________
[1] Frankincense in the system was “holy,” but compound incense, being a mixture, was “most holy.” Mixtures are always holy, which is why the layman was to avoid them. I have treated this matter fully in James B. Jordan, The Law of Forbidden Mixtures. Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper 6 (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1989).

(James B. Jordan, The Handwriting On The Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 337-340.)

Jordan’s discussion of the “cloud-coming” passages in the New Testament is enlightening, as is the rest of his must-have commentary on Daniel, available here.

The miraculous gifts given to the firstfruits church are part of a very large pattern, one which we can can see thwarted in the Garden of Eden, and presented as laws in the Ten Commandments. It is the “song of the Woman” after the crushing of the serpent. It is a “legal testimony” that the Word of God is true. We see this epitomized in the life of Paul the apostle, who sought every opportunity to testify in court concerning the resurrection of Jesus. In the greater picture, the witness of the firstfruits church is this part of the picture in the history of the world. That legal witness continues today, but in the first century it had a special purpose, and that was to divide the Jews into “two goats,” two women, Hagar and Sarah (the past and the future) and bring down the curses of the Covenant upon those who rejected the Gospel. The gift of tongues was part of that miraculous witness, a corroborrated legal witness in the courtroom of God, [1] and the purpose of this “Babelic” gift was completed when the Herods and their Temple, the “Babylon” of the day, was destroyed. [2] Consequently, the miraculous gifts ended with the firstfruits church. The time of “childhood” for the Church was over. [3]

Luke Welch has some related observations which are interesting, and he, like Jordan, demonstrates how much we Christians miss because we fail to read the Bible as a united book.

As I read along in Numbers, I keep seeing things that Paul has latched onto. For example, Paul says (1 Corinthians 14.5-9, 24):

“Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?… If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?”

The punch line to this whole thing is at the bottom, but let’s focus on the bugle thing first. Look at Numbers 10.1-3, 9:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Make two silver trumpets. Of hammered work you shall make them, and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for breaking camp. And when both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the entrance of the tent of meeting. … And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies.”

The bugle gets two things to happen which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:

1. Gets the congregation to assemble
2. Gets the congregation to be ready for battle by breaking camp while making a memorial directed at God.

Having established the passage connection, notice another huge one, which we see when God gives “the Spirit which is on Moses” out to the 70 elders, and two have not shown up at the elder assembly. They were caused to prophecy even in the camp, and Joshua wants to help by saying, “My lord Moses, stop them!” What is Moses’ reply?

But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 10.29)

Remember that? Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14.5). Paul’s heart is Moses’ ministry desire too.

I note also that this prophetic period for both Paul and Moses:

1. was a forty year period between defeat of one enemy and another
2. Pharaoh, and Philistines (for Moses)
3. Caesar, and Satanic Israel (for Paul)
4. Moses took the people INTO the land for conquest.

Throughout Paul’s writing, he is calling the church to the conquest of the whole world, and at the end of those forty years they will be forced out of the land, in a sense, after the destruction of Jerusalem.

_______________________________
[1] See A Tongue of Gold.
[2] See Three Babylons.
[3] See Cessation.

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

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

Join now for a year for $15!

An online acquaintance asked: “There’s a hermeneutical method that’s been used on this site called ‘systematic typology’. What is it? How does one apply it? Are there contexts where it is considered to be a particularly good or particularly bad fit? Where can one go to learn more about it? And where does it come from? (Who developed it, and based on what?)

What is it?

Firstly, this is a term I’ve given to a process which I didn’t invent. The name is simply to get people thinking, to get across to the modern thinker that there is a very definite internal logic to the symbolism of the Bible.

Just as systematic theology identifies and isolates similar ideas, so systematic typology identifies similar symbols but does not isolate them. Rather it notices their use at similar points in repeated literary and historical structures or processes or architectures.

How does one apply it?

In two ways: firstly, we must learn the Bible’s symbol language; secondly, we must notice that these symbols are used in a repeated structure, which helps not only to identify them, but also to show how different symbols are used to communicate similar themes. The repeated structure is what allows us to make and verify the typological connections between the events described. It also reveals when the Bible’s typology is being abused. An abuse is like a wrong note in a familiar tune.

The most basic event-structure is the Creation narrative in Genesis 1, and it is the chord from which the entire Bible “symphony” flows. When you see a passage that recapitulates the Creation Week, there are some very valid things you can draw from the text that aren’t actually written in it. An example would be Ezekiel’s use of the Creation pattern as he liturgically “de-creates” the Temple and Israel in his early chapters. The allusion is structural, and a familiarity with the symbols used in each step allows us not only to identify the structure but to pick up when the prophet is deliberately inverting something or changing it to make a point. Another example which comes to mind is Isaiah is working his way through the Tabernacle furniture in one of his prophecies. When he gets to the Incense Altar, he says that Israel’s sacrifices are a stench in God’s nostrils. If we know what he is doing structurally, suddenly the passage is opened to us.

The basic structures we must learn are the Creation Week, Israel’s festal calendar, the Tabernacle, the Covenant pattern, and the resulting process of maturity and dominion. All of these align with each other.

If this all sounds too complicated, it’s not. It’s something you already do if you are into literature or even popular culture. It’s no different than figuring out when a modern movie is a retelling of a Shakespearian play. I think Western writers have the Bible’s shape so ingrained in their thinking that they use it unconsciously – the recent James Bond movie Skyfall, for instance, has a liturgical shape.

Are there contexts where it is considered to be a particularly good or particularly bad fit?

Because the Bible is so consistent in a) its use of symbols and b) their placement in a consistent order, I have found this process useful in all of Scripture. In fact, it answers a great many theological debates. I believe the documentary hypothesis was an error, but only because its proponents did not have the necessary understanding of the Bible’s structure. What appears disordered to us is actually a very careful order. A few months ago, I worked through the book of Numbers. “Systematic typology” explained its structure at three or four levels (sevenfold within sevenfold etc.) and recently worked through Ephesians, which contains exactly the same patterns. What is really interesting is that the structure reveals many of Paul’s allusions and they are stunning. For instance, in one passage he works through Israel’s feasts, and basically makes the Gentile Church the new Firstfruits, that is, a new Levitical priesthood. This would have been shocking to first century Jews who must have been familiar with the “liturgical” structure of the Torah.

Where can one go to learn more about it?

The first thing to do is to learn the Bible’s symbol language. If you read the Scriptures regularly, you will find that when things are pointed out, you already sort of knew them. The best place to start is James B. Jordan’s book, Through New Eyes which is available on amazon.com, or you can download a free PDF from www.biblicalhorizons.com. The site also has a “manifesto” on symbolism, and there is much help in the introduction to his commentary on Judges which you will also find in PDF. He speaks about identifying repeated themes and roles. It surprised me how important Genesis 1-3 is for interpreting the rest of the Bible. The roles of Adam, Eve and serpent keep recurring. For instance, Judges is a book about head-crushing. Jordan also has many Bible lectures, available from www.wordmp3.com Please note, he takes a little while to get used to, but he will teach you to think like a Hebrew, that is, visually. He is American, but recently gave some introductory lectures in London and they are available for free here.

My work has been to “systematize” Jordan’s thinking, giving it some terminology and laying out the structures visually. Once you are more familiar with the symbol language, the architecture, and its source in Genesis, you might like to move on to my ‘Bible matrix’ books, which explain each pattern and how it is used. You will see that each Bible text is a microcosm of the whole.

Genesis 1 is the Bible Matrix. As it matures throughout the Scriptures, the identification of this pattern unlocks the books of Moses, Israel’s history, the structure of Jesus’ ministry and the book of Revelation. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, should we expect anything less? It also has staggering implications concerning the identity, purpose and future of Christianity—and these implications are thoroughly, joyously liberating.

And where does it come from? (Who developed it, and based on what?)

Quite a number of theologians have identified the Creation Week as deep structure in many Scriptures. Jordan noticed its similarity to the Covenant pattern (the suzerainty treaty) What I have done, being a visual thinker, is to diagram these and lay them out a little more plainly. So this process is not new. But it is not a haphazard or occasional ornamental literary flourish. It is a carefully integrated weave, and I have found that it often answers questions of variant readings (the structure often shows that a phrase in question is required to keep it complete).

What this boils down to is learning not only the symbols as “musical notes” but also the tunes which they keep repeating. This includes the sacred architecture, which begins in the Garden, works through the Tabernacle and Temple and is finally expressed “in flesh” in the Christian Church. I am confident that this process works because it has never failed. It is remarkably consistent, incredibly intricate, and yet all based on a relatively simple formula.

Symbols and structure cannot be divorced. Very often, the particular placement of a symbol within a structure is what reveals its meaning. So structural analysis is crucial. This is why I find the sole reliance on word studies so frustrating. That is only part of what needs to be done. What the word is is important, but just as important is where it is in the phrase and where the phrase is in the passage. If you want to see this in action, check out my recent work on Ephesians. Note that it might seem incomprehensible until you learn the basic tools. But it will give you an idea of how the text is constructed.

or the Covenanto-Architecturo-Historico-Grammatico-Muso Method

“A seal is meant to be broken.”

During the first of his recent lectures in London, James Jordan tore a page out of his Bible. It was the page announcing the New Testament as a separate book with its own pagination. It is one thing to interpret the New Testament in the light of contemporary literature and history, but their importance pales in comparison to the texts being recognized as a continuation of the Scriptures.

The break between Malachi and Matthew (whom Jordan and others believe was indeed the first to pen a gospel) was not the first period of silence. The New Testament is, in fact, the “fourth testament.” But there is another equally important factor, and that is the continuation of the practice of woven, or fractalline, literary structure based on Covenant history.

The fact that the literary structure of all the Old Covenant Scriptures proceeds in an identical fashion in the New is not something commonly discussed, especially in the kind of detail which follows below. Such an application might be an imposition on the text, but the degree to which it does work indicates a strong possibility that it is actually the key to the structure of the text and thus the author’s “Covenantal” intent.

If the case is the latter, then the position of every phrase within the literary structure reveals it as a powerful allusion as the author recapitulates the  histories of the Covenant people over and over again. If this literary convention is indeed the lens through which we must view the text, all the commentaries so far are wanting. There is a hidden dimension waiting to be explored and discussed and enjoyed and admired.

As we will see, this practice not only enables the author to pull these allusions out of the grave but also to give them some surprising “resurrection” (New Covenant) meanings without saying a word. The structure itself speaks volumes. (I could write about this for decades, so if anyone rich feels like becoming a patron of the arts, drop me a line.)

Identification and “parsing” of such an interpretive grid demonstrates the unbreakable ties between the New Covenant texts to the Old. It also exposes the embarrassing flatness of the historico-grammatical method. When I spout arrogant fire like “there’s so much more going in the text but it goes right over our heads,” I’m not blowing smoke. Thousands of scholars have pored over the text looking for rhyme and reason and not noticed that it is written in a three dimensional architectural-literary code.

If you are coming to this without a reasonable familiarity with the interpretive process described here, you won’t understand what is going on. See the Bible Matrix videos in the link at the top of the page for some basics. But to those familiar with the tune, you can sing along and enjoy Paul’s New Covenant lyrics written to an Old Covenant tune, a tune begun in Genesis 1.

Perhaps we should call this hermeneutical science the “Genetic” method, seeing as it is a combination of history, liturgy and poetry (unimaginable!). The modernist New Testament experts had better learn to whistle along.

Needless to say, if this thesis is correct, the beauty of these precious texts far surpasses anything we could have possibly written — or even imagined. (See The Eye of Sound)

CREATION (TRANSCENDENCE)

The structure of the first stanza not only asserts Paul’s authority from God (his name is the inspired source), it makes his apostleship a new exodus (Hierarchy). The will of God makes him an altar, the symbolic four-cornered Land, and the Gentile saints are his firstfruits, which is surprising because that role under Moses was limited to Levites, the pure of the pure, the Jews’ Jews. This is mindblowing — until we remember Jesus’ words about giving the kingdom to those who would bring forth the fruit God desires. The stanza ends with both Jesus and the New Covenant believers as spiritual offspring of the Father (Succession). Can you see what I mean now, about this “two-coordinate” method? Paul’s letters are “woven” in the same way as the Torah.

DIVISION (HIERARCHY)

Notice the heavenly places at the centre. This stanza reminds me of the structure of the Revelation, which puts the seven churches, beginning with Ephesus, in the heavenly places as a “de-centralized” lampstand, a new hierarchy in the firmament.

Notice that the “choosing” before the foundation of the world in the structure is “bridal,” a summoning at Trumpets, and us being holy and blameless is set at Atonement.

It is interesting that the ESV puts “in love” at the beginning of the next sentence. Yet the structure requires a final line in the second stanza. Who needs punctuation when you have the Bible Matrix?

ASCENSION (ETHICS 1)

This one kind of speaks for itself, but we must remember that this stanza is Ascension. This blessed adoption puts us on the Altar with Christ. Notice the “bridal song” at step 5.

TESTING (ETHICS 2)

The centre of this stanza, and thus of the entire structure, is “the forgiveness of our trespasses.” Here, the bridal result of Jesus’ faithful offering is plunder rather than plagues, the “riches” of His grace. Notice also that “lavished” appears at the Day of Coverings. When the Sanctions are applied to the saints, the Lord only has blessing for His new Creation, and no cursing. Wisdom and insight refers to our position as wise judges, joint-heirs, co-regents, elohim who shall discern between the angels.

MATURITY (ETHICS 3)

The “Tabernacle” thread appears to shine the most brightly in this stanza. At Maturity, it refers to the New Covenant house, the bridal body, the Jew-Gentile Church, eyes opened, unveiled and mediating for the nations, face to face with God in Christ. The use of “fullness” at step 5 in stanza five is “fragrant,” the Springtime of the resurrection.

CONQUEST (SANCTIONS/OATH)

Stanza 6 corresponds to Joshua (inheritance) and coverings (investiture with glory). The Church, covered by Christ, is now His covering, His glory. Notice that the structure places Christ as the firstfruits head and the first century saints as the firstfruits body, the harvest. The structure of the book of Revelation does the same thing. The “counsel of His will” is the Spirit, appearing in this stanza at Pentecost, the “holy fire.” As always, the underlying process not only refers to harvest but also the process of the rite of sacrifice. Revelation is a giant sacrificial rite. Israel is put on the altar as a whole burnt offering (an “ascension”) and divided into harlot and bride, the ashes of mourning swallowed by the Land and fragrant, pleasing smoke rising to God as a witness to her judgment (1 Kings 13:5; Revelation 19:3).

GLORIFICATION (SUCCESSION)

I can see the exact structure of the book of Revelation in this final cycle, which is not surprising. Commentators will rattle on about how precious and wonderful it is that we as saints have been sealed. But what does it mean to be “sealed”?

These last two stanzas are talking about the events in Revelation 7, where the firstfruits saints are sealed (“Numbered” Jews and numberless Gentiles, all in white robes) for the purpose of being martyred. The seals on the saints are not a pretty mark from God but replicas of the seals on the New Covenant scroll, the one the Lamb has opened to claim His inheritance (the nations).

A seal is meant to be broken. These saints were not to simply sit in pietistic wonder at their precious Jesus. Their mission, as the sacrificial body, was to die as an army of firstfruits lambs, a bridal multiplication of Jesus. These blessed were sealed as living epistles, sent out as horsemen to have their seals broken (yet remain Covenant virgins, see Tokens of Virginity) through death and resurrection, filling up the sufferings of Jesus, bringing down the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy upon Israel for the last time. (See The Secret and Images of God.) They would fulfill the book of Leviticus not in animal blood but in their own blood. Now that Jesus had ascended, God could accept human sacrifices “in Him.” These were the sheep Peter was entrusted to feed for the slaughter.

This brings us to the end of the first cycle, so the matrix structure is working at three fractal levels: stanzas, cycles and epistle (and of course the epistle is part of even greater literary and historical structures). But it does not bring us to the end of the chapter, so the remainder must begin the second cycle.

It is passing strange that the modern mind is open to fractals in nature and technology, but modern theology so far seems resistant to the idea that the entire Bible is structured in such a way. Unraveled as it is above, it resembles DNA. Lined up in columns it resembles a woven cloth. The Word itself was knitted together in the womb of Israel, and the birth pangs of the Jewish war — the blood and the water — gave a new body to the people of God in the world. Totus Christus.

or Bible SatNav

The adage “A picture is worth a thousand words” refers to the notion that a complex idea can be conveyed with just a single still image. It also aptly characterizes one of the main goals of visualization, namely making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly. (Wikipedia)

It struck me this morning, as I read one of my regular theology blogs, that theologians don’t much use diagrams. The blog post in question used over a thousand words to describe something that is inherent in the architectures (both literary and spatial) found in the Bible.

What this means is that, for the most part, the way we communicate theology is foreign to the way our God does it.

One drawback of listening to James Jordan lectures is the fact that the listener misses out on his whiteboard diagrams. I have no idea if they are any good, but Jordan thinks “spatially.” As I’ve become familiar with the “domains” described in the Bible, and how the literary structure follows the same pattern, it has become apparent that a great deal of theology is blind men feeling their way around an elephant. Not only do they not realize it is an elephant, what they also fail to see is that the elephant is in a room.

I’m sure this all sounds a bit arrogant. I’ve been gifted with the ability to think visually and musically. Please note that this has come with many disadvantages. I don’t understand people very well, I’m terrible at team sports, and I have a tendency to be obsessive. But it does mean I am able to think outside the box. This is generally because the one thing I cannot see, however hard I try, is the box. If I can see the internal logic in something, the boxes built by well-meaning scholars become irrelevant.

Here are two examples:

Hyperpreterism

As I commented to a hyperpreterist friend recently, the reason I agree with HP interpretations of certain texts are the very same reasons I am not a hyperpreterist. The internal logic of the Bible makes plain to me where the “partial” preterists are wrong, but it also knocks hyperpreterism on the head. The HP is holding the trunk and the PP is holding the tail. They are both right and they are both wrong. They blindly hurl proof texts back and forth at each other with no regard to the architecture of the Bible. And when I point this out, they ridicule “structure” as an unnecessary ornament.

Paedobaptism

The best theologians are paedobaptists. Yet, once again, the internal logic of the Bible shows this doctrine to be erroneous. It can only be maintained by destroying the spatial and literary architecture of the Scriptures. I know I have written over a thousand words about paedobaptism, but what they describe is a relatively simple picture which develops through Bible history. Objections come from the monk holding the foot, or flipping the tail, or lifting the eyelid, and I am struck by their inability to understand the integrity of what I am describing. They seem to have all their doctrines filed in separate boxes and in many cases are unable to see how they relate to each other. For me, it is a single picture, and paedobaptism does far more than merely mess up the feng shui. One online friend said the Bible Matrix was the best argument against paedobaptism. Another commented that there are other ways of looking at Scripture. Well, sure there are, but surely these different ways of looking at it shouldn’t contradict each other. Internal logic is internal logic.

The Lord is obsessive about structure, and we now have thousands of books on theology without any thought of it whatsoever. I come into a debate with all my chess pieces in place and my objectors are still trying to figure out what material their pieces are carved out of.

Once again, I’m sure this sounds arrogant. Things that are obvious to me are not obvious to others. When the idea of the Bible Matrix hit me a few years ago (after listening to James Jordan on the Revelation), its implications and possible advantages were obvious. It was plain that this was the Bible’s SatNav, and the authors of the Scriptures seem totally aware of it. It came fully formed, fully connected, and its implications simply needed to be worked out. When I explain it, the response is usually, “that’s nice,” or “how interesting.” But a handle on the internal logic of the Scriptures has the potential to answer every theological debate.

Apparently, Albert Einstein was a frustrating lecturer. He would jump all over the place with little explanation, just like the authors of the New Testament (and James Jordan, for that matter). The reason is possibly that connections that were obvious to Einstein needed to be explained to his students. I’m no Einstein, but when I started writing about this stuff, what I wrote was extremely “dense.” I’ve learned to spell out every step, to “show my workings.” I’m hopeless at math, but this is the problem facing a 13 year old math prodigy in the UK. He can simply “see” the answer, but the system requires him to show how he got there, which is a good discipline.

The advantages of biblical eidesis, or “fracto-spatial” thinking, are becoming more apparent to me as I work through Bible Matrix III. I am drawing diagrams I have had in my head for over five years, yet, once they are drawn, I notice further connections within them which vindicate their veracity. It feels like somebody has been here before me. I can’t wait for you to see the complete book.

Anyhow, apologies again for the apparent arrogance. And I have written an entire post to explain a single observation. WordPress tells me it is 1000 words.

_____________________________
See also The Eye of Sound. Please note that my “Bible mind map” will not appeal to the Blind Monks.

Part 1 here.

We’ve covered the first “Covenant cycle” in Numbers, which in theory should set the pattern (fractally) for the remainder of the book. Here’s my go at the second cycle, which (again, in theory, if my suspicions are correct), should be an “exposition” of the second part of the first cycle, which concerned the “military” arrangement of the tribes around the Tent of Meeting (Delegation). So, even though this cycle works through all seven steps, each step should reflect an “Exodus/Hierarchy” or Delegation theme. Each step thus has two literary “spatial coordinates,” an X and a Y. Each step must thus employ a symbol that pertains to two different Covenant steps, or describes the relationship between them.

This is no mean feat, yet we see it everywhere in the Bible. It’s probably wise to demonstrate this process with a diagram:

When laid out vertically, or “in series,” the text looks like DNA. However, when laid out “in parallel,” this literary architecture is like the “warp and weft” of weaving. It is a tapestry, but not in the warm-fuzzy quilting circle type way that most commentators use the word “tapestry.” It is a precise, mathematically-ordered grid of ideas. [1] (I have also diagrammed this process using the feasts. Click here for a graphic.) So, that’s the theory. Let’s see if it works.

As mentioned previously, it seems that Numbers only consists of five cycles (an “un-opened scroll”) but I think the central cycle might consist of three sections, making the entire book a sort of miscarried seven. We’ll see.

________________________________________________
[1] See also Warp and Weft.
[2] Only the Eastern and Southern tribes are mentioned in the Hebrew. “One alarm was the recognized signal for the eastern division of the camp (the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun) to march; two alarms gave the signal for the southern to move; and, though it is not in our present Hebrew text, the Septuagint has, that on three alarms being sounded, those on the west; while on four blasts, those on the north decamped. Thus the greatest order and discipline were established in the Israelitish camp–no military march could be better regulated.” (JFB) The head tribes of east and south were Judah and Reuben, the lion and the man, so perhaps the omission is deliberate. Structurally, the four separate commands concerning the trumpets are already FOUR HORNS for the Altar.
[3] We see the same ironic reversal when Elisha cuts off the children of Jezebel (Bethel’s golden calf) and yet reverses the miscarriages of the believing Gentiles in Jericho using a bowl of salt. Israel’s offense and sterility brought life to the Gentiles (Romans 11).
[4] Israel turned these blessings into curses. See Kids in the Kitchen: Passover in the Motherland.
[5] See Red Cord, Blue Threads 1, 2 and 3.

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.