The Return of the Ark of the Covenant

[richard]

The “Treatise of the Vessels” states that the Ark of the Covenant will return with the Messiah. While it is always possible to say that the Ark of the Covenant will return when Jesus comes again, yet it is clear that people could reject Jesus as the Messiah because the Ark has not returned yet.

However, a tradition recorded by Rashi could provide a different interpretation. The Bible says that in Solomon’s temple, the poles of the Ark extended into the veil (1 Kings 8:8), with Rashi commenting:

{The poles} were pushing and bulging similar to two breasts of a woman, as it says, “he lies between my breasts” (Song of Songs 1:13).
www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15892/showrashi/true#lt=primary

In other words, the Ark could represent a woman. And as the Lord previously appeared above the Ark (Lev 16:2), so too a very special woman did appear in the second temple carrying that same Lord, heralding the Messiah (Luke 2:26).

Given that God cares about people and not golden items, it could be debated that the return of the Ark relates to a woman and not to the box itself. The Ark may be lost forever, but what the Ark represented did return. And Church tradition always has identified the Ark of the Covenant with the Virgin Mary, who carried Jesus the Messiah.

What are your thoughts?

Richard

[alon]

Not sure where you are going with this. To start, the English translation of this text is from “More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Project of the University of St Andrews.” Pseudepigrapha means the text claims ancient status when in actuality it is of later origin; to wit, it is a lie. So we can pretty much rule it out as being in any way accurate.

I personally believe the Ark will reside in the Temple in the Millennial Reign, and not before. I do not see The Almighty subjecting it to the Anti-Christ when the Third Temple is desecrated by him.

God does care about His holy adjuncts, as well as the Temple as these were, and are part of His redemption plan.

As for Rashi, the esoteric bent of Jewish sages is well known. He was smart, but what he said is not scripture. Treat it as commentary. I seriously doubt it will literally be a woman, and even if it was it wouldn’t be Jesus mother (who, in spite of Catholic tradition only had one virgin birth; Yeshua).

Don't know if that is what you were looking for, but hope it helps.

[richard]

Nov 14, 2024 9:04:49 GMT -8 alon said:

Don't know if that is what you were looking for, but hope it helps.

I think there might be some misunderstanding regarding sources. I merely quoted the easiest references. Louis Ginzberg also quotes a tradition when he says that the Ark will be restored when God “will erect His house and Temple” (although I find it hard to trace his sources, as they are either in Hebrew or Victorian books; I can give his references if you wish as the webpage only has his main text without footnotes). Yoma 21b gives something similar.

Rashi’s comment that the poles resembled two breasts is found in Yoma 54a.

I’m not saying that the ancient holy objects are not holy, but merely that Jesus came to restore humanity to God. It is people that count first. For example, Ginzberg talks about the Temple being rebuilt, yet consider the gospel passage:

{19} Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." {20} Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" {21} But He was speaking of the temple of His body. (John 2:19-21 NKJV)

The Jewish opponents take the word Temple literally, but Jesus and John take it symbolically. That is all I am doing: Temple or ‘Temple’, Ark or ‘Ark’? (‘Temple’=human body, ‘Ark’=woman)

I’m guessing that you might not value tractate Yoma and other traditions, but the point is how will Jews who value these traditions be able to re-evaluate their faith based on this re-interpretation? I’m using their own traditions to point to Jesus, no matter what their literal historical value.

I know that Messianic Jews are Evangelical based, so perhaps mentioning the Virgin Mary might not have been the best start! But what if all these strange traditions were fulfilled with Jesus, but with a deliberate symbolic meaning, like Temple or ‘Temple’=human body?

Richard

[alon]

I/we value Talmudic references as well as other writings as commentary and insight to how Jews thought in the time they were written (not necessarily today). As for how Jews will take it today, I suspect they will be angry that another Gentile is trying to use their own sacred writings against them. And many do consider these works sacred.

That brings up a point though- not all Jews are the same nor do they believe the same.

I see where you are going with the analogies. However the reference was the poles were similar to a woman's’ breasts, not to a woman per se. And I suspect you are right about the way we see the Virgin Mary being very differently to Catholicism. She was just Miriam, mother of Yeshua. And that was the only virgin birth. We do not deify her.

Why is finding the Ark so important to you? It will be found in God's time, and not before. And like I said, I seriously doubt it will be found before the Millennial Reign, since finding it before would subject it to the depravities of the AC.