Posted on 12/29/2005 6:54:10 AM PST by emiller
If Indiana Jones had done his homework, he would have found the Ark of the Covenant by raiding a church in the barren mountains of northern Ethiopia.
Many Ethiopians believe that the Ark, containing the stone tablets inscribed with God's Ten Commandments, rests in the church of St Mary of Zion, at the town of Axum, and some western scholars have
(Excerpt) Read more at news.telegraph.co.uk ...
I agree that the Ark wasn't in the temple in the time of Josiah. I'm sure the Levites were as puzzled as the king was as to the Ark's location -- and if not, their predecessors may have hidden it. But these later references aren't references to the Ark's having a known location, the 2 Kings and Isaiah citations refer to the Lord, rather than the Ark.
But again, they refer to the Lord in referece to the Ark. After Josiah's time, we never see the Lord addressed by that particular title again, do we?
There's a reason for that, IMHO.
I think we'll find out for certain one day in the very near future.
I wonder... did it contain some radioactive substance? In what way were the Phillistines afflicted?
The Bible says they will do exactly that...restart the sacrifices...and they'll keep going until the evil causes them to cease and declares himself God in the Temple.
It is the sacrifices that I was mainly focused on...God looks at any church or synagogue (and every human being for that matter) built for his glory as "his temple" and that any acts that defile such places earn his ire.
The temple will be just "another sign of the times" as will be the abomination of desolation by the anti-christ. The sacrifices the Jews will hold there will sorrowfully be just another example of their continued rejection of Jesus as messiah. That is why I said the temple is not necessarily a "good" thing, though necessarily an essential part in God's plan! So I will concede that that part is at least "GOOD"!
It is the sacrifices that I was mainly focused on...God looks at any church or synagogue (and every human being for that matter) built for his glory as "his temple" and that any acts that defile such places earn his ire.
The temple will be just "another sign of the times" as will be the abomination of desolation by the anti-christ. The sacrifices the Jews will hold there will sorrowfully be just another example of their continued rejection of Jesus as messiah. That is why I said the temple is not necessarily a "good" thing, though necessarily an essential part in God's plan! So I will concede that that part is at least "GOOD"!
The mormons found some stuff in New York. Left behind by some Mohawk on a badger hunt.
That's one way of looking at it, though one cannot discount the existence of Messianic Jews in their End-Time scenario.
Looking at it another way--tell me, do you think that all post-Cross sacrifices are a rejection of the Cross itself? What if I were to demonstrate from the Scriptures that not only did the Apostles continue to participate in Temple sacrifices, but that God actually links the eternality of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices to the eternality of the Messiah's office as King of Israel? How would that effect your outlook?
Some of the apostles may(though I don't see any real proof they did for much longer after pentecost and the rise of the apostle Paul) have participated in temple sacrifices, but the gentiles converts certainly weren't required to...the temple veil was rent in twain remember? The apostle Paul wrote reams and reams of stuff regarding the shedding of Christ's blood being the final and perfect sacrifice for our sins...that the blood of animals was just a covering but not a final cleansing. The national sacrifices were done thru the temple at Jerusalem, no where else...there is a reason why there have been no sacrifices in Judaism to this present day.
Read Acts 21:23-26, then try to puzzle out a few questions:
- Since the object of this purification ritual was to demonstrate that Sha'ul (Paul) still kept and taught other Jews to keep the whole Torah, where in the Torah is a ritual involving purification and the shaving of the head?It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes with a Strong's, some halfway decent Bible software, or the Blue Letter Bible. Let me know what you find.- What else exactly is involved in said ritual?
Then read Jer. 33:15-22, and let me know what you find there.
No, I'm not trying to play games with you. I've just found that this works better if someone sees it for themselves.
but the gentiles converts certainly weren't required to
Agreed. But we were talking about Israel.
The national sacrifices were done thru the temple at Jerusalem, no where else...there is a reason why there have been no sacrifices in Judaism to this present day.
Again, agreed. And I'm not telling you to go out and sacrifice goats in your backyard. But it's precisely the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem that we're discussing.
As for your question regarding post cross sacrifices, I think their prophetic foretold resumption could be excused if the priests asserted that Christ was that final sacrifice that makes all men clean.
But they don't make that assertion, they instead stubbornly insist that Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to raise consciousness of sin, is the ultimate summit of man's spirituality and the sacrifices resume under that mindset.
The apostle Paul proclaims in Hebrews, that Christians have come to Mount Zion, where God's grace and forgiveness rules, that the power of death and sin has no sway, and that his laws are written on our hearts of flesh by means of the Spirit instead of on tablets of stone that we try to follow on our own strength.
What-ever forms of worship God may institute via his rule on Earth in temrs of future worship, it will be of a Mount Zion mind-set not a Mount Sinai mindset...the judgements of Mount Sinai(death and hell) are for those who reject Jesus and the offer of his grace.
And by the way, Christ's priesthood was after the order of Melchizidec, not after the order of Levi!
"but the gentiles converts certainly weren't required to
Agreed. But we were talking about Israel."
The gentile converts are made sons of Abraham via the spirit of adoption; we are Israel too...what affects them affects us...therefore the gentile converts should have been required to sacrifice at the temple too, if that is what you are asserting?!
Put that on hold for the moment, look at the passages I've given you, and get back to me with your thoughts on them.
"And he shall purify the sons of Levi that that may offer unto the Lord an offering of RIGHTEOUSNESS..."
How can Levi purify the sons of Levi...he can't...Levi can only offer sacrifices of sin covering animal blood...but after the High priest after the order of Melchizedec gets done with them....they can offer offerings of pure Righteousness that eminates from their entire beings... indeed they become living sacrifices unto the Lord, wholly accetable to him...
We are all sons of Levi in a sense,,,groaning under the burden of sin and death, but after our cleansing we become God's sons and daughters...heirs of mount Zion!
I agree that ultimately that is paramount, and certainly will be the centerpiece of the Millennial sacrifices (Ezk. 40-48). Nor am I saying that a Christian should necessarily go sacrifice in the End-Time Temple--I'm not sure that we could without sending the wrong message regardless of whether it's theologically appropriate or not.
But they don't make that assertion, they instead stubbornly insist that Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to raise consciousness of sin, is the ultimate summit of man's spirituality and the sacrifices resume under that mindset.
The Torah has many purposes beyond that, but that's a whole separate argument. For my part, I make no distinction between the "moral" Torah (those parts which tell us how to "Love thy neighbor"--like not stealing, not committing adultery, forgiving other's debts, actively helping our enemies, etc.) and the "ceremonial" Torah (those parts which tell us how to love God, like keeping the Feastdays which lay out His entire prophetic plan, etc.).
For now, the big thing I'd like you to realize is that many Jews, even though they don't know Yeshua as the Messiah, still know that people can only be saved by God's grace, not by rigidly keeping the Torah. They certainly need to know their King, but we have to be careful about judging hearts with a broad stroke--or about portraying a Jesus that came to do away with the Torah (cf. Deu. 13:1-5, Mt. 5:17-19).
The apostle Paul proclaims in Hebrews, that Christians have come to Mount Zion, where God's grace and forgiveness rules, that the power of death and sin has no sway, and that his laws are written on our hearts of flesh by means of the Spirit instead of on tablets of stone that we try to follow on our own strength.
Yes. But if God's Torah is written on our hearts (as indeed Jer. 31:31-33 and Heb. 8 both state), does it cease to be the same Torah that He gave at Sinai and which He Himself said in the person of Yeshua would not pass away?
And by the way, Christ's priesthood was after the order of Melchizidec, not after the order of Levi!
Exactly. Which is why Jer. 33 presents such a problem, as you'll see when you look it up.
"Read Acts 21:23-26, then try to puzzle out a few questions"
You need to read the entire chapter of 21 and 22 and it begins to point to what I was saying...Christianity was in its infancy and there were controversies as to how "worship", which customs to keep which to let go...and how far to let the gentiles go before declaring them in violation. Paul stood on the exact cutting edge of Christianity...he had been converted and had brought his message to the Jews only to have been beaten and imprisoned for it. God told him in Acts 22 that he would go to the Gentiles...verse21. His preaching to the gentiles and to the Jews was the heart of the issue here. The purification rites you mentioned were to try to make him more palatable to the Jews as well as the gentiles as a means of "bringing the people together"(21:22). The idea was to try to show folks that Paul was a real "Jew" first. Reading on into verses 27 thru40 the plan back-fired when Asian Jews(not Christians) accused him of bringing Trophimus(a gentile they had seen with Paul at Ephesus) into the temple and "polluting it". They brought the city into an up-roar and the Romans had to intervene to save Paul...when allowed to speak he recounted his conversion before the people and the subsequent rejection of his message and the direct command of God to go unto the gentiles. This led to more strife with Paul ultimately bound in prison for over two years until he was sent to Rome for trial before Ceasar.
It was Paul's conclusion that the customs of sacrifice and Ritual under Mosaic law..as defined by the Talmud(which took root during the 400 "silent" years) were fullfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and that we were, Jews and gentiles included free of the law, that faith and salvation by grace were the order of the day. "The just shall live by faith". We were saved by faith not by works...to require new converts to conform to circumcision and other aspects of Judaism was to subject men to the Law whose requirements no man could master or be perfect...thus the need for the shedding of innocent animal blood as payment of the blood debt the law requires for transgression of the law. Christ was that ultimate sacrifice...that final shedding of innocent blood from a man who knew no sin.
The Law requires death when it is transgressed, but when a sinless man dies, this creates a spiritual quandary...since the law has no power of sinlessness...only the sinner. And if God in flesh who was both man and God dies...the law itself is fullfilled ,its power is broken, death has no sting..the grave has lost its victory...and that man thus dead cannot stay dead for death cannot hold him; indeed that man becomes death's master."For as in Adam all die...even so in Christ shall all be made alive"....Man trangressed the Law there for a perfect man corrects the imbalance for all of us. The law is not destroyed, it becomes alive in us
written into our hearts(our "I AM" inner place if you will).
This is what Paul was asserting, and that's what got him into trouble.
The Jews who will resume the sacrifices in the rebuilt will be asserting the old Covenant...not the new covenant in which Christ asserts very simply " I AM the resurrection and the Life, he who believes in me, though he were dead yet shall he live"
I'd invite them all in to see it and touch it.
"Jer. 33:15-22"
It doesn't say the the "branch" is drawn from the Priestly Levites, only that there shall not be "no want of such a man before me to offer burnt offerings and to kindle meat offering and to do offerings continually.
Now why should there be no want of a man to do these offerings and to be a son of David upon the throne...both eternal high priest and King? Because Jesus..the Living son of God and God in flesh alive from creation's inception and before then...is our High priest and King! No more Levites are needed...he is our Living Sacrifice, our meat offering broken for us and our blood drink offering poured out for us. Levites offered temporary covering for sins via animal sacrifice...it is He that purifies the Levites in Malachi3:3 so that they offer unto the Lord an "offering in Righteousness" and by extension to all men!
Read Malachi chapter 3 in relation to Jeremiah 33 and the whole plan of salvation literally comes alive right before your eyes!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.