[ChicagoHebrew]

I don’t see how the Ark could be described as a “Christian” relic. It is called the Ark of the COVENANT for simple reason: it symbolized the Covenant between God and Israel. Most Christians believe that God abolished or replaced this covenant roughly 2000 years ago. Israel (i.e., the Jewish people) believes it remains in effect today.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Most Christians believe that God abolished or replaced this covenant roughly 2000 years ago"

In Europe maybe. I wouldn't say that's the predeominant view among Christians worldwide. That view has no biblical support. There were no statute of limitations on the Abrahamic covenant!

I wouldn't argue the point contentiously. I think you would find if you spoke to the writer, and most evangelical Christians, you would find that their understanding is that they share the same faith as biblically-oriented jews, but understand Jesus to be the Messiah, as did Rabbi Kaduri (ref)

There is a lot of old testament precedent for the non-legalist position, David eating the shewbread, "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart", etc.

[naturalized]

I suggest you read Exodus 25:10-22. It’s called the Ark of the Covenant because it contained the covenant God made with the Israelites. It was not a symbol, it was the dwelling place of God, the place from which He would speak to Moses about His commandments from God.

“Abolish” and “replace” are wildly different concepts, and one should not glibly use them in the same sentence. Jesus expressly said he did not come to abolish the law (teachings). I think a more helpful way to think about this is in the context of a contract - when an old contract is fulfilled, and a new one regarding the same subject matter is drawn up, we don’t talk about abolishing or replacing. I think a better way to think about it is that the old covenant was merged into a new convenant - one that takes the old agreement to a better place.

God said His covenant with Israel would last forever. I believe Him.