All of the arcane “personal” stipulations in the Torah find their fulfilment in the corporate worship of Israel. Just as the sacrifices were to be without blemish, so also were Israelites to be spotless if they were to stand before God. But the rules for the identification, quarantining and ceremonial cleansing of leprosy only begin with the skin of the worshiper in the wilderness. They then move to the garment, and finally to the house in the Promised Land. A failure in personal holiness would lead eventually to a corruption of corporate worship. James Jordan writes:

Jesus’ statement that the stones of the building will not be left attached to one another hearkens back to the rules for house affiction (“lepr­osy”) in Leviticus 14:33-53.¹On the translation of “leprosy” with “affliction,” see Jordan’s monograph, The Touch of Affliction: The “Plague” of “Leprosy” in Leviticus 13. Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper 31 (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 2002). If the affliction in the walls of the house proves irremedia­ble, the priest is to “tear down the house, its stones, and its timbers, and all the plaster of the house, and he shall take them outside the city to an unclean place” (Leviticus 14:45).

From the verse just cited, it is clear that house affliction only applies to a house inside a walled city. An examination of the history of the applica­tion of the laws of house affliction sheds considerable light on certain events in the gospels, for the primary house to come under these rules is the temple.

In Ezekiel 8:7-13, Ezekiel is told to dig into the wall around the temple. In his vision the wall is hollow and has a chamber inside of it. All over the inner walls of this chamber are carved various idols, and the leaders of Israel are worshipping them secretly.²These people were not actually worshipping idols or engaging in idolatry. We know from Jeremiah that they had turned the temple itself into an idol, and regarded Yahweh as their own national god who would always protect them. What Ezekiel sees in his vision is their true hearts, not their outward beliefs. This is a graphic picture of house affliction, the “greenish or reddish” marks under (within) the walls of a house.

Of more immediate relevance is Zechariah’s fifth Night Vision (Zecha­riah 5:1-4). The prophet sees a huge flying scroll, having the dimen­sions of the Holy Place of the tabernacle. The Holy Place was a symbol of the  rmament heavens, and this scroll appears in the firmament. It goes forth from God, as the “eyes” of Yahweh have gone forth in the previous vision (3:10; & 1:10-11; 6:1-8). From Genesis 1, we know that God’s eyes evaluate what He sees. His eyes are also, thus, an evaluating scroll, the law of God in its judging function. The scroll measures every house in Israel to see if it conforms to the holy dimen­sions of the Holy Place. Two specific sins are judged: false swearing (wor­ship) and theft. We have noted this pair already in our study. The houses of those who swear falsely and/or who steal will be consumed with house affliction, according to Zechariah 5:4, “[The curse] will dwell with­in that house and consume it with its timber and stones.”

When we come to Jesus’ “cleansing” of the temple, we find that He condemns the people for these two sins: “My house should be a house of prayer (true swearing), but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). Later on, in Revelation 13:14-16, the “Beast Image,” which is the idolatrous worship house of the apostates, also requires false worship and a mark that governs buying and selling.

We know from a full reading of the gospels, Matthew through John, that Jesus “cleansed” the temple twice. As the living Scroll or Word of God, He arrived at the house two times. This is in accor­dance with the laws of house affliction in Leviticus 14. Making allowances for a general application of the principles in Leviticus 14, we can see Jesus fulfilling them as follows:

First, if greenish or reddish marks appear inside the walls of a house, the priest is to quarantine it for seven days. This corresponds to Jesus’ first inspection of the temple, record­ed in John 2:14-22. From that time, Jesus did not go again to the temple, as far as we are told, until His final arrival in Jerusa­lem.

Second, if after a week of quarantine the reddish and/or greenish marks have spread, the priest is to tear out the stones and plaster that have the marks in them, and repair the place in the wall. This corresponds to Jesus’ second temple inspection, as recorded in Matthew 21:12-14. Jesus drove out the bad stones, for the temple is made of human stones, and then restored the blind and lame, restoring the hu­man temple. This dual action of tearing down the bad and restoring the crippled as a true human temple is a microcosm of Jesus’ entire earthly ministry of restoring Israel – which then falls anew by rejecting Him.

Third, if the affliction reappears in the house, the house is to be torn down complete­ly. Jesus as priest, as Zechariah’s Flying Scroll, comes in the late ad 60s, finds that the temple has not been repaired (i.e., the people are still apostate), and destroys it.³From The End of the World: A Commentary on Matthew 23-25, by James B. Jordan. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com

Further to this, although the Hebrew word translated “leprosy” is indeed a striking, a plague, it seems that it pictured an invasion of the Sanctuary by the serpent.

The linguistic root of the word translated “leprosy” [tsara’ath] may mean “smiting.” The curse of leprosy came as a “stroke,” which aligns it with the plagues the Lord brought upon Egypt at the hand of Moses. This, however, gives us no clue as to what this disease actually was.

The “whiteness” of this condition most certainly links it to the “whiteness” of death. The purification rites for a person contaminated by a corpse are similar to those for a person with “leprosy.” Moreover, when Miriam is struck with the condition, Aaron begs that she not become like a still born child “whose flesh is half eaten away.”

However, there is another feature of this “leprosy” which traces this “death” back to Eden. Whereas the Hebrew word denotes being struck with a plague, it is described in Akkadian with a word which means “scaly” or “covered with dust.” Scales and dust tie it to the curse upon the serpent in Genesis 3. Leviticus 13 also refers to a “dry scall,” so rather than naming an actual disease it describes a symptom: scaled skin.⁴Jacob Milgrom translates the biblical “leprosy” as “scale disease” in his Leviticus 1-16, 768–889. In his Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, Oppenheim quotes the word which has been translated leprosy as “covered with dust” or “scaly.” The Akkadian word “epqu”, which was translated leprosy in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, also means “scaly.”

This might help explain the language connected to it in 2 Kings 5, where the leprosy of the faithful, obedient Gentile is transferred to the lying, thieving Israelite, as his ironic Covenant “inheritance”: “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. (2 Kings 5:27 [KJV])⁵From “Scales of Justice: The Covenantal Significance and Serpentine Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’” in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.

This explains the references to the apostate High Priesthood as a “man of sin.” This representative of humanity had allowed the serpent to take dominion of the Garden. Following his expulsion from the heavenly court at the ascension of Christ (Revelation 12:9), Satan took up residence in the replica of the Sanctuary on earth (signified in Revelation 8:10 as the Edenic “springs and waters”). By the time Christ returned to inspect the Temple, the house was indeed “serpentine,” filled with demons (Matthew 12:43-45).

For as in those days before the flood
they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage,
until the day when Noah entered the ark…
(Matthew 24:38)

The Oath/Sanctions section of the Revelation seems to have three parts. The judgment begins in the house of God (Temple bowls – Garden), then follows the revelation of the “mystery” of the Woman and the kings of the Land, and finally the judgment reaches out to the borders of the World (the oikoumene). This corresponds not only with the Garden, Land, World architecture of the nations in Genesis 1-10, it brings an end to the “intermarriage,” the compromise of the Priestly people with idolatrous kings. It is fitting that the third part of this judgment (chapters 18-19) culminates in a Red Wedding.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

Every one of God’s houses throughout Bible history has a “former days” and a “latter days.” Each goes through a process of death and resurrection, a “purification by fire.” Following the Bible Matrix, the central “slaying” of every row has a Day 4 symbol, something related to “the governing lights,” the all-seeing eyes of heaven.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

“And as he prayed, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his clothing was white and glistening.” (Luke 9:29, King James 2000 Bible)

The Tabernacle was covered in three layers: linen, red-dyed ramskin, and a third layer of tachash. What’s tachash? The word is a mystery, and there have been many suggestions concerning its meaning, from unicorn to dolphin. But perhaps that mystery has now been solved. And the glistening solution is nothing like you’d imagine in a million years.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

“God’s word is His presence, when delivered in a true setting.”

by James B. Jordan. Biblical Horizons No. 245

“And hearkened Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,
and Joshua son of Jehozadak, the great priest,
and all the remnant of the people,
to the voice of Yahweh their God,
and to the words of Haggai the prophet,
just as Yahweh their God had sent him;
and the people feared the presence of Yahweh.
“Then Haggai, the messenger of Yahweh, said
in a message of Yahweh to the people,
saying,
“I am with you — a statement of Yahweh.”
And Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel
son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah,
and the spirit of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the great priest,
and the spirit of all the remnant of the people;
and they came and did work on the house of
Yahweh of Armies, their God,
on the twenty-fourth day
of the sixth month,
in the second year of King Darius.

(Haggai 1:12-15)

While it makes for a bit of an awkward English sentence, it is important to see that the first word in verse 12 is “hearkened.” The obedience is instantaneous. We read at the end of the verse that the people feared, or respected, the presence of Yahweh, which in this case means the words of Haggai.

God’s word is His presence, when delivered in a true setting. God had placed his “Name” in the Temple built by Solomon: “My Name shall be there” (1 Kings 8:29). When carried to Babylon, the Levites asked “How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a strange land”; how can we sing the Temple psalms away from the Name in the Temple? (Psalm 137:4). In Psalm 138:2 David gives an answer:

I bow down to Your holy temple,
And I give thanks to Your Name,
For Your lovingkindness and for Your faithfulness,
Because You have magnified Your Word over all Your Name.

Indeed, as David continues in Psalm 139:8, “If I make my bed in Sheol, You are there.” Wherever God’s Word is, His Name-Presence is.

In verse 13, Haggai is called “the messenger of Yahweh.” This is the same word as “Malachi,” My Messenger. It is also the word translated “angel” when referring to spirit-beings. In Genesis 28:12 Jacob saw angels moving between heaven and earth. Similarly, God’s prophets are consulted by Him and carry His words to earth (Amos 3:7; 7:1-8; Genesis 20:7; 18:20-33). In Acts 6:15 the Jews saw the face of Stephen as the face of an angel, which means that when they killed him they were killing God’s messenger, killing the manifestation of God’s very presence in their midst. The Jews should have “feared” the Lord through Stephen as their forefathers had feared Yahweh through Haggai, Yahweh’s messenger/angel.

In verse 9 the “statement of Yahweh” had been one of judgment, but now in verse 13 it is one of blessing. “I am with you” is Immanuel, God With Us, God’s presence among us.

Verse 14 tells us that “not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit” the Temple is built (Zechariah 4:6). In Zechariah this is the message to Zerubbabel the Davidic Temple-builder. Here it is a blessing to all the people. Interestingly, in Exodus 31 :3ff. it is only Bezalel and some associates of his who are filled with the Spirit to build the Tabernacle. Now in this more glorious time it is all the people who are stirred by the Spirit.

What does this mean for us today? We should consider that before Solomon built the first physical Temple in Jerusalem, a generation earlier David had set up a temple of psalmody around the house(s) of God. (Ark and Tabernacle were separate at this time.) God was enthroned on the praises of His people (Psalm 22:3). Those praises were the psalms.

Uh, yes. The psalms.

In heaven, right now, Jesus is singing the psalms to God the Father. He is not singing metrical paraphrases. He is “chanting” the psalms as they are written.

The gift of tongues is given to the Church to enable us to translate the Bible into all languages, improving those languages over time. We can chant the psalms in English or in any other language in union with Jesus.

So-called “metrical psalms” are fine as sermons based on the psalms, but they are not psalms. You have to be a in a strange mental state to think that they are the same as actual psalms. Anybody with half a brain can tell that they are not.

So, if God’s true temple is a house of music, where is it today? I attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, and also Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pemisylvania. There was chapel every day. Not once was there any psalm singing. And these places advertised themselves as conservative and orthodox! (Which is some ways they were, but not at this point.) Historically, chanting the psalms along with Jesus has been central to Christian worship. In historic monasteries, all 150 psalms are sung every week!

So Haggai asks us: Is now the time for you to have your 35-inch flat-screen television and your microwave, while the house of God is lifeless and desolate? Do you not care about all the suffering Christians around the world who need you to stand before God during the Lord’s Day and chant the psalms, especially the imprecatory ones? Should you not be building the house of God, that house of prayer and psalms?

Biblical Horizons is published occasionally, funds permitting, by Biblical Horizons, P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, Florida 32588-1096. www.biblicalhorizons.com Anyone sending a donation, in any amount, will be placed on the mailing list to receive issues of Biblical Horizons as they are published.

“Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war… From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.” (Revelation 19:11-15)

The Bible is big on fruit. The first “Covenant Ethic” was a prohibition on fruit from a particular tree. The transgression of Adam resulted in curses upon the fruit of the Land and the fruit of the womb. The book which describes the end of the Old Covenant, the Revelation, shows the dragon attempting to eat the son of Adam, the fruit of the womb, and then to devour the fruit of the Land, the apostolic “firstfruits” Church. [1] But where is the forbidden tree?

Firstly, there were two trees in the Garden, Life and Wisdom, physical and ethical, priesthood and kingdom. One very old idea is that Jesus was the stolen fruit returned to the tree, but if this is the case, and Jesus’ cross is the “Kingdom” Tree, how is Jesus’ death also a Tree of Life?

The answer is that there was not one cross, but three. Adam was given the Tree of Life (like priestly bread) and if he had qualified he would have received the Tree of Wisdom as a gift (like kingly wine). We know this because the same pattern is found throughout the Bible. If Adam had humbled himself he would have been exalted.

If this had indeed happened, Adam would have eaten from both trees as a gift, and their fruit would have been combined, mixed, united, in his body, like bread and wine, and converted into flesh and blood. Adam himself, speaking for God against the serpent like a true prophet, would have brought forth the fruits of righteousness (which are the result of truly hearing and digesting the Law). Adam would have become the third tree, priesthood and kingdom combined as The Prophet.

We see the same architecture in the Tabernacle, which is humaniform. The Table of Showbread and the Lampstand represent priesthood (left hand) and kingdom (right hand/sword) respectively, with the fragrant “bridal” Incense Altar between them as the place of Eldership and mediation. In the Temple, these three “internal” furnitures were represented externally as the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, priest and king. Their names allude to the “forming and filling” process in Genesis 1, which ends with Day 7, “the future.” The complete man of God is the forming, the filling and the future, the prophet. He does not remain in the Garden like the other trees, but walks out of it (on two pillar-like legs) into the Land to take dominion. In the Temple visions in Zechariah and the Revelation, this was represented by spirit-horses rushing out into the world with the decrees of God.

So, Adam himself was to become the third tree, the man as a tree walking, the Prophet, the first Father, a tree of righteousness. If found to be a faithful priest, he would receive the promised kingdom and carry the fruits of the Spirit, as a flaming sword, into the Land. Then God would open the Land and the womb (firstfruits and righteous sons instead of a murderer and the murdered) and the nations (the harvest of righteousness, instead of the lawlessness of Genesis 6).

Jesus was the righteous firstfruits of the Land and the womb, combining priesthood (God’s face against Adam – the Facebread) and kingdom (God’s face shining upon Adam – the Lampstand) into prophethood (Adam as God’s face – the Incense Altar). So the cross is really the third tree, the complete Tabernacle, all three furnitures of the Holy Place united.

Jesus’ blood poured out on the Land began the end of all blood boundaries and all Land boundaries, and transformed Israel into a Prophetic Body, commissioned to leave the Land and walk with God throughout all the world, with the flaming sword of the testimony of Jesus. The sword coming from Jesus’ mouth in Revelation 19 is the Gospel. He has slain the corrupt High Priesthood (Adam – Herod), the now demonic worship centered in Jerusalem (Eve, the harlot – corporate Herodias who “beheads” the prophets), and broken the power of Rome over the Covenant (serpent, the beast – the fourth guardian turned bad), and is shown riding from the Land into the World, just as the four Gospels were shown riding from the Garden into the Land earlier in the book.

So, the crucifixion wasn’t just making restitution for the fruit stolen by Adam. Architecturally, it laid claim on the entire three-decker world. It also lifted up Cain and Abel (the two thieves as “blessing and cursing”, the priestly and kingly sons) and all the nations (unmixed blood and water, Land and Sea, Priesthood and Kingdom under legal Prophecy).

The third tree is a hybrid of the two trees in Eden, priesthood with kingdom grafted in, and like Enoch it walks with God, in the saints, and causes men to call upon God. When you receive the bread and the wine, flesh and blood united again in a new body, you leave the house of God with a great commission.

More on this (with diagrams) in Bible Matrix III: The House of God (forthcoming).

__________________________________
[1] This is the subject of Revelation 14. The firstfruits saints who were earlier sealed at Pentecost and afterward are slain, “harvested as grain and grapes” under the sickles of Jesus. As He (Garden) was Firstfruits to their Pentecost (Land), so now they (Land) would be the Firstfruits of the entire World. See James B. Jordan’s The Grape Harvest of Revelation 14:17-20.

And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:17)

The same word is used of the men crucified alongside Jesus in Mark 15:27.

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.

Is this merely coincidental, or is there something deeper going on? Is there a link between the “white collar” Temple crimes and the “blue collar” criminals?

The word itself derives from booty or plunder, so the connotation is theft from the vulnerable.

The link between the Temple and the thieves at the crucifixion is implicit (not explicit in the text as such) but obvious once we take sacred architecture into account, which is a foreign idea to moderns, but nonetheless a consistent type as far as the Bible is concerned.

The original theft occurred in the Garden of Eden, in the first Sanctuary. It was theft from God, with consequences outside the Garden, that is, in the Land then in the World. The Temple itself replicated these three domains: the Most Holy (Garden), the Holy Place (the Land/Israel) and the Gentile Courts (the Nations/World).

Because the Herodian High Priesthood had usurped the authority of God’s commandments, the outflow corrupted the sacrifices and then Israel’s Covenant witness to the nations. The imaging of Yahweh to the nations by His people (as a kind of corporate “Adam”) was inaccurate, corrupt.

We can see this reflected in the structure of the Ten Commandments, which echo the events of Genesis 1-3. Adam stole from God, and God asked Adam for a legal confession of what he had done, that He might show mercy. Theft and legal witness are consecutive commands, followed by commands concerning “house and contents,” or Israel as a shelter, a “Booth” for the Gentiles. (Remember also the true testimony of Jesus and the false witnesses brought against Him by the priesthood.)

The same architecture is inherent in the crucifixion, where the two robbers are “blessing and cursing,” two Covenant witnesses. Christ is the High Priest and these two men take the roles of  Cain and Abel, sons of thieves (and also of the two goats on the Day of Atonement [1]). The one who humbles himself “unto death” in a priestly fashion is the one who will be exalted in the kingdom. The other, who exalts himself as a usurping “king” against the Son of God is the one who will be humbled and receive nothing. So once again we have theft and legal witness tied together.

Finally, “plunder” is a Covenant concept which is also both positive and negative. Obedience to God’s Laws brings a “multiplication” of the heart of those under Covenant. Obedience brings plunder from God’s hand. Disobedience brings plagues from God’s hand. Plunder and plagues were tied together as “swarms” in Egypt (with Israel herself as a kind of “swarm” which plundered the Egyptians). We see it again in the “multiplication” of the victory of the Ark of the Covenant in Philistia, where the gold they sent with the Ark (as plunder) was actually fashioned in the shape of plagues, (bubonic?) tumors and rats.

The theme of vulnerability in all cases is “bridal,” that is, those who are under the priestly representation (of Adam, or Israel), whose offspring, as the future, are at stake in Adam’s mediation on her behalf before God. In Eden, this was Eve, the great “multiplier,” the mother of all. In Israel, it was the tribes under the mediation of a faithful High Priest. In the world, it was all nations under the ministry and witness of Israel as a corporate Adam, “cut” and bloodied to bring the kings of the nations — and their riches — in willing submission to God.

The flipside of “Adamic” theft is “Christian” generosity. What goes on in the World and the Land (from petty crime right up to theft by the state) is a result of what goes on in the Sanctuary. Cultus inevitably informs culture.

Let the thief no longer steal, (Garden) but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, (Land) so that he may have something to share with anyone in need (World). (Ephesians 4:28)

___________________________________________
[1] See Remember Me.
ART: Bible images created using Google Earth.

Ritual is powerful stuff. Much of modern evangelicalism prides itself in rejecting liturgy and being “open to the Spirit,” and then turns this “openness” into an uninspired (and very uninspiring) human formula, in place of the inspired Divine one. Instead of following a pattern found in every part of the Bible (worship is literary architecture), we are stuck with either erroneous traditions or off-the-cuff rambles which, although “open to inspiration,” somehow sound exactly the same each week. Human beings love repetition in every area of life, and ritual is a prime method of teaching truth and holiness.

The power of ritual is illustrated in its amazing ability to preserve things such as archaic language and symbolic dress “in amber.” Old parishioners love their traditional Church service. If things aren’t done in the way to which they are accustomed, and in the same order, there is a deep feeling of insecurity. The tradition must be preserved. The motivation for this is often as wrong-headed as that of the moderns who want to update everything: a sense of security found in a common identity. The old people identify with the a human culture that is past, and the young people identify with a human culture that is present. It is the tradition, whether old or new, which gives us our identity. Very often, neither group is actually identifying with the Bible.This brings me to the point of this post: I don’t believe the maintenance of the rite of paedobaptism has much to do with the Bible.

Now, before you brainy paedobaptists tune out, this post is probably going where you think it’s going, but there is a surprising twist in the plot. This week, Peter Leithart writes:

One of Paul’s arguments for the resurrection is baptism for the dead: “What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). Paul is referring to Numbers 19, where those who are defiled by contact with dead bodies. They are sprinkled with a concoction of water and ashes to raise them from their ceremonial death. Paul sees an analogy between that rite and Christian baptism that cleanses from dead works.

If this is Paul’s argument, then it provides some insight to persistent debates concerning the mode of baptism. The rite of Numbers 19 involves sprinkling (vv. 13, 18, 20), and if Numbers 19 is a figure of Christian baptism, then we may be able to draw the inference that Christian baptism for the dead should also be in the mode of sprinkling.

For those used to hearing that Paul is referring to a contemporary pagan ritual, which is in itself a plausible theory, an appeal to the Torah most likely comes out of left field. One thing I appreciate about the Biblical Horizons crowd is their focus on the “self-referential” nature of Scripture. If an allusion is a mystery, the first place we must look is not the contemporary culture but in previous Scripture. Almost invariably, that is where the answers are found. So, how then would I, a credobaptist, deal with this assertion concerning the mode of baptism? I’m glad you asked.

Firstly, Dr Leithart has to ignore all the evidence for immersion as the mode of baptism in actual New Covenant baptismal texts (arguments which, though nothing new, are still potent arguments) and go looking for support in obscure Old Testament rites. Like him, I don’t believe these rites should be obscure to us at all, but surely we shouldn’t be looking to these rites to defy the obvious appearance of New Covenant texts but instead to support them. This practice is just another example of the textual weaseling that goes on to present paedobaptism as biblical rather than merely traditional.

Secondly, this appeal to Numbers 19 does have some merit. James Rogers expounds upon it for us on the Biblical Horizons site here. He writes:

Clearly the writings and practice of the Old Covenant economy are authoritative for the Christian Church. This is why the Old Testament is part of the canon of the Church. The practice of baptism, however, is not an invention of the New Covenant Church (nor of Near Eastern mystery religions). There are a number of ritual baptisms described in the Old Testament, and prescribed for the Jews.

Thus, the New Testament author of Hebrews writes of Old Covenant rituals:

The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the time then present, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they related only to fool and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the flesh imposed until a time of reformation. (Heb. 9:8-10)

The “various baptisms” in verse 10 is often translated as “various washings.” Nonetheless, the Greek word used there is “baptisms” (cf., “instruction about baptisms” in Heb. 6:2).

Now which baptisms is the author of Hebrews writing about? These baptisms are detailed in the immediate context of the passage. Specifically, in verse 13, the author refers to “the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling” as examples of the Old Covenant baptisms that he is writing of.

I agree with him almost 100 per cent and recommend reading the entire article. So, if I agree with him, and thus with the foundations of Dr Leithart’s observation, where do I go from here? What I do is this: I read Numbers 19 without wearing the one-eyed paedobaptist goggle. And what do I discover? I discover that there is another “washing” which is crucial to every stage of this rite which Rogers and Leithart apparently deem to be irrelevant. With their typological cross-hairs focussed solely on evidence for sprinkling, they’ve missed the component which is ripsnorting evidence for immersion. I don’t know how they missed it. A similar command appears four times:

Verse 7: “Then the priest shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. But the priest shall be unclean until evening.

Verse 8: “The one who burns the heifer shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his body in water and shall be unclean until evening”

Verse 10: “And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.”

Verse 19: “And the clean person shall sprinkle it on the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day. Thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he [the clean person] shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.”

This evidence is not exactly subtle, is it? It exposes the paedobaptistic exegetical monacle for what it is: the insight of a one-eyed man.

So, thirdly, the next logical question to ask is this: What is the difference between these two uses of water? Which of these types finds its antitype in New Covenant baptism? Again, the answer is found in Numbers 19. [2]

Verse 9: “And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place. And they shall be kept for the water for impurity for the congregation of the people of Israel; it is a sin offering.“

The text makes a clear distinction between the clean and the unclean, that is, between the pure priesthood and the impure and contaminated people. This “water of impurity” was not purely water. It contained the remains of the heifer (“…its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung”), and the cedarwood, the hyssop and the scarlet thread. It seems to me that the heifer signifies the Bronze Altar, the hyssop (possibly the aromatic herb, “ezov” [1]) signifies the Incense Altar, the scarlet thread signifies the Table of Showbread (which alone was covered with an extra scarlet veil under the common coverings [Number 4:8]), which would leave the cedarwood, a source of medicinal oil, as the signification of the Lampstand, a holy tree of Pentecostal (kingly) anointing. [3] The “water of impurity” is thus an outflow of the ministry of the Tabernacle. The entire humaniform (and cruciform) house itself was symbolically cursed, slain and incinerated, both its earthly and heavenly altars, to free the people from a contagious death, a death spread by a touch of the skin. [4] But note that this water was for the cleansing of those outside the Tabernacle. It was applied to the people by ministers from inside. It was mediated by those who washed their bodies and clothes by immersion (unless the ancients used dry cleaning).

I have used the architecture of Exodus 24 as support for credobaptism, and we see the same idea here. All the people are sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice, but only those on the mountain, the leaders and elders, eat with God as representatives of the people of Israel. After this, the Levitical priesthood is established, with the Tabernacle as a portable Sinai. There is a line between the priesthood and the people. The crystal sea was seen on the mountain. The water is mediated by those who may ascend as model citizens, images of maturity.

The entire point of the transfiguration of the Covenant was to create a priesthood of all believers. All believers are to be witnesses carrying the testimony of Jesus, mediators of the Gospel. We are to be sources of living water, not merely its recipients, which is why our whole bodies and robes are washed. This means that the washing of the body and the clothes in Numbers 19 is far more likely to be the type of New Covenant baptism, and even the New Testament says as much, with its references to “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.” (Revelation 22:14)

All the cuttings and sprinklings were related to sin offerings and thus were fulfilled in Jesus, who was all Israel in One Perfect Offering. The impure water containing the remains of the Old House was the water which flowed, with blood, from the expired flesh of Christ. It is not a testimony of life but of death, a sign that the Law has been satisified and nothing more. The desire of paedobaptists to link the sprinkling in Numbers 19 is entirely logical, because their errant baptism amounts to nothing more than a strange new circumcision, and since the resurrection, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing. Paedobaptism is nothing more than a testimony of death. It is not a testimony of life.

Paedobaptism is nothing but the washing of a sacrificial corpse, a body which awaits the fire. Credobaptism is the robe of ministry for one already clean, temporarily removed in humility to provide cleansing for others (as the High Priest on the Day of Atonement and as Christ when He washed the disciples’ feet) but replaced as an eternal robe of glory, of continuous resurrection, from glory to glory. Baptism is for the gatekeepers, those who are able to discern the spirits because they are of the Spirit. The waters of baptism do not contain the curse, the remains of the Old Tabernacle, but are pure waters rushing out in chariots from a new Bridal Temple.

It is highly ironic that those who speak so much of “the baptized body” limit the ministry of the water to an Old Covenant sprinkling on the head.

_________________________________________
[1] See the wikipedia entry.
[2] For the position of Numbers 19 in the structure of the book, see The Beauty of Numbers – 3.
[3] Note that the cleansing of lepers in Leviticus 14 contains similar ingredients, and includes 2 sacrificial birds, which from our study of Genesis 15 the other day, would symbolize the “holy head,” or the Ark of the Covenant. Also, cedarwood has to do with the  Temple of Solomon.
[4] On leprosy as “snakeskin,” see Scales of Justice.

“Picasso did not paint for the eyes but for the gut. He painted for the gut that the eyes might be opened.”

One only has to compare a portrait of Picasso’s wife to that of one his lovers to prove that his strange perspective on reality worked from the inside out. What we feel as we observe his works is what he feels about his subjects as he paints them. The spirit and desire which animate man and beast not only move flesh but, in Picasso’s world, distort reality. Time and history without fail reveal the true character of objects, people and ideologies. A Picasso is often the exterior of a person or event shaped or distorted by the spirit and emotion within. It is a history in a single frame, an X ray that discovers not the bones but the heart. Emotional reality is revealed in shape and color. In these cases, his subjects are possibly “ethical nudes.”

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

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

Join now for a year for $15!

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: