The Real Indiana Jones and the Ark of the Covenant

[Mishkan]

curt said:

I'm sure. The heavenly is not a copy, it is the original. It is the pattern used by the earthly.

And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.
(Exodus 25:8-9)

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(Hebrews 8:5)

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
(Hebrews 9:23)

Which is more valuable the original or the copy?

Curt,

I see that smiley you added at the end of your post. But I hope you won't mind if I use your post as a jumping off point. It has long been a belief of mine that we take the book of Hebrews entirely too literally.

If you examine the outline of the book, you will find that it is a series of sermonic teachings called "midrashim". That is, the book of Hebrews is a series of vignettes, each based on the rabbinic speculation surrounding one or more episodes in the Tanakh.

The passage about Melchizedek, for instance, is one such case of speculative theology. It simply is not true that he had no parents. But he has no recorded lineage. Hence, he makes great fodder for investigation. And, for the writer of Hebrews, he becomes a source for some great parallels with Yeshua.

Likewise, this whole deal of, "the pattern shown you in the mount". I'd like to point out that the original text only says that Moses was shown a pattern while communing with God on Sinai. There is no such thing as an actual sanctuary in Heaven. Moses was given a set of instructions, presumably in vision form. That's all. Anything more is of the same nature as rabbinic speculation that God wears a tallit. After all, it is reasoned, God must keep the same that he gave his people. Therefore, he must wear a tallit, and light Sabbath candles, etc.

It is my thinking that Christian teachers often make way too much of the word pictures drawn in Hebrews. The text is not identified as what it is--a compilation of speculative sermons, midrashim, based on a series of popular passages from the Hebrew Bible.

There is no second Tabernacle in Heaven. No copy and no original. There is only the one sanctuary--the one that served Israel in the wilderness. And while we're at it, I think it is worth mentioning that the writer of Hebrews is talking about something that no longer existed in his day--the tabernacle of the wilderness had not been around since the time of King David.

Shabbat Shalom,

Mishkan David

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I don't want us to get to far off point, but you bring up some good ones

Perhaps we even need a new thread to address some of the issues fully. But, in regards to what you are saying about the copy of heavenly things, you have a good point. Because if we take a close look at the description of the millennial temple (see the book of Yechezkel/Ezek.) and then take a look at the dimensions of the New Jerusalem that comes out of the sky as described in Revelation and compare them to the previous earthly Temples and Tabernacle...they are all different...so how then can they be exact copies? Perhaps some of the mechanisms are the same and some other structural similarities, but exact copies...nothing that I can see in TeNaKh to confirm this.

Shalom chaver,

Reuel

[Curt]

I see that smiley you added at the end of your post. But I hope you won't mind if I use your post as a jumping off point. It has long been a belief of mine that we take the book of Hebrews entirely too literally

.

Curt: Let me address your belief that the book of Hebrews is taken too literally. The Hebrew verses I cited Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 9:23 have no symbolism in them and neither do the surrounding verses in the same context. Therefore without symbolism they have to be literal.

If you examine the outline of the book, you will find that it is a series of sermonic teachings called "midrashim". That is, the book of Hebrews is a series of vignettes, each based on the rabbinic speculation surrounding one or more episodes in the Tanakh.

Curt: I completlely reject this idea! I believe Hebrews is the inspired Word of God! It was inspired by God not man. God did not look down on earth and say WOW! These rabbis really give good sermons I think I’ll include it in the Holy Bible. Men did not inspire God to include but God inspired men to write. God does not include rabbinic speculation in the Bible He purposes in His Heart every word.

The passage about Melchizedek, for instance, is one such case of speculative theology. It simply is not true that he had no parents. But he has no recorded lineage. Hence, he makes great fodder for investigation. And, for the writer of Hebrews, he becomes a source for some great parallels with Yeshua

Curt: Don’t believe the writer Of Hebrews was trying to parallel Melchizedek with Jesus. As I wrote in my article in the Melchizedek thread Jesus’s geneaology precludes Him from being Melchizedek. I cited in Matt. 1:1-17 and another source would be Jesus’s geneaology cited in Luke 3:23-38 The writer of Hebrews was not speculating about Melchizedek. God inspired every Word of God for our instruction not our confusion of speculation.

Likewise, this whole deal of, "the pattern shown you in the mount". I'd like to point out that the original text only says that Moses was shown a pattern while communing with God on Sinai.

Curt: Not unlike a set of “blueprints” used by construction workers today. God didn’t bring down the original tabernacle erected by Himself to show Moses He brought down the pattern or the construction blueprints to construct an exact replica of the one already in existence in heaven.

After all, it is reasoned, God must keep the same that he gave his people. Therefore, he must wear a tallit, and light Sabbath candles, etc

Curt: God wears garments made of light.

Psalm 104:1-2 (New King James Version)
– 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul!

O LORD my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

There is no such thing as an actual sanctuary in Heaven. Moses was given a set of instructions, presumably in vision form

.

Curt: There exists a tabernacle which is greater than the one which had existed on earth. It is perfect! It was not made with hands. It is not of the earthly creation.
Curt: Hebrews 9:11 (New King James Version)

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.

Curt: Jesus actually ministers in this heavenly sanctuary and true tabernacle. If this heavenly tabernacle is the “true tabernacle”, what does this suggest of the earthly tabernacle? This sanctuary and tabernacle was erected by the LORD Himself.
Hebrews 8:1-2 (New King James Version)
1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Curt: Revelation 15:5 (New King James Version)
5 After these things I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.

There is no second Tabernacle in Heaven. No copy and no original. There is only the one sanctuary--the one that served Israel in the wilderness. And while we're at it, I think it is worth mentioning that the writer of Hebrews is talking about something that no longer existed in his day--the tabernacle of the wilderness had not been around since the time of King David.

Curt: When Hebrews speaks of the first tabernacle it is not speaking of the one in the wilderness. Hebrews is speaking of the first part of the tabernacle which is called “the sanctuary” which contains the lampstand, the table and the showbread..


Hebrews 9:1-2 (New King James Version)
1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary

Curt: The second part is called the Holiest of All which contained the golden censer and the ark of the covenant.

Hebrews 9:3-5 (New King James Version)
3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail

Because if we take a close look at the description of the millennial temple (see the book of Yechezkel/Ezek.) and then take a look at the dimensions of the New Jerusalem that comes out of the sky as described in Revelation and compare them to the previous earthly Temples and Tabernacle...they are all different...so how then can they be exact copies?

Curt: The dimensions of the New Jerusalem and the heavenly temple are not the same because the New Jerusalem is a city and the heavenly temple and earthly temples are not a city. Also, I disagree with your attaching the word millennial to the word temple found in Ezekiel but I guess that can be discussed in your thread called “The temple and the priesthood.

[Mishkan]

curt said:

Let me address your belief that the book of Hebrews is taken too literally.

Well, you are certainly welcome to participate as much as you like, here.

curt said:

The Hebrew verses I cited Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 9:23 have no symbolism in them and neither do the surrounding verses in the same context. Therefore without symbolism they have to be literal.

I'm sorry, but I think you have overlooked a number of points in the context. For instance, the statement that Yeshua "sits on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens". Is Hashem not a spirit? Does the almighty sit on a literal throne? Do we believe in a God with a physical tukhus, like Ba'al? Or do we believe in the infinite spirit?

Once we establish that the entire context of the chapter is an extended metaphor, then everything else I have said falls into place. God does not physically sit on a throne. There is no temple other than the one established in Jerusalem. Messiah is not literally a high priest in some other realm. All that language is metaphorical, of the same nature as rabbinic statements that God wears a tallit--it is meaningful to the hearers, but not literally true.

curt said:

I completlely reject this idea! I believe Hebrews is the inspired Word of God! It was inspired by God not man.

Hmmmmm... This makes me wonder whether you understand midrashim as a literary genre. The Bible contains many figures of speech, including similes, metaphors, acrostics, metonymy, and more. Recognizing this passage as a midrash is simply one more literary form.

curt said:

God did not look down on earth and say WOW! These rabbis really give good sermons I think I’ll include it in the Holy Bible. Men did not inspire God to include but God inspired men to write. God does not include rabbinic speculation in the Bible He purposes in His Heart every word.

This indicates to me that you really need to read some actual midrashim, like the "Midrash Rabbah". Identifying a literary genre has nothing more to do with the nature of inspiration than identifying a metaphor or a metonymy.

curt said:

Don’t believe the writer Of Hebrews was trying to parallel Melchizedek with Jesus. As I wrote in my article in the Melchizedek thread Jesus’s geneaology precludes Him from being Melchizedek. I cited in Matt. 1:1-17 and another source would be Jesus’s geneaology cited in Luke 3:23-38 The writer of Hebrews was not speculating about Melchizedek. God inspired every Word of God for our instruction not our confusion of speculation.

"Speculation about Melchizedek" is all there is. The whole notion of stating, "He has no lineage," comes from the realm of speculation, based on the absence of a lineage given in Scripture. The rabbis were quite interested in investigating things like this. Sometimes, it seems like, the less detail provided, the better the rabbis liked it.

curt said:

Not unlike a set of “blueprints” used by construction workers today. God didn’t bring down the original tabernacle erected by Himself to show Moses. He brought down the pattern or the construction blueprints to construct an exact replica of the one already in existence in heaven.

I'm sorry, but I find that more fanciful than the rabbinic speculation.

curt said:

God wears garments made of light.

Psalm 104:1-2 (New King James Version)
– 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul!

O LORD my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

Did you just quote poetry to prove the point that God wears clothes??? The infinite, limitless, spirit Being pulls on a shirt and trousers each day? The only difference between God and men is the composition of the clothing? We wear linen shirts and his shirts are made of light? On the basis of the most poetic material in the whole Bible?

curt said:

There exists a tabernacle which is greater than the one which had existed on earth. It is perfect! It was not made with hands. It is not of the earthly creation.

Hebrews 9:11 (New King James Version)

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.

Very good. But you have yet to enter into the issue of why this should be taken literally when the text makes no sense at all if we understand it to mean that God needs a physical tabernacle and throne.

curt said:

Jesus actually ministers in this heavenly sanctuary and true tabernacle. If this heavenly tabernacle is the “true tabernacle”, what does this suggest of the earthly tabernacle? This sanctuary and tabernacle was erected by the LORD Himself.

Hebrews 8:1-2 (New King James Version)
1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Revelation 15:5 (New King James Version)
5 After these things I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.

Of course, this ignores the midrashic nature of the passages you cite. It is, in effect, a circular argument at this point. In fact, you've taken a step backwards by resorting to the highly allegorical book of Revelation. In a book full of visions and metaphorical figures, you hope to find proof that Hebrews is not a midrashic writing, and should be taken literally?

curt said:

When Hebrews speaks of the first tabernacle it is not speaking of the one in the wilderness. Hebrews is speaking of the first part of the tabernacle which is called “the sanctuary” which contains the lampstand, the table and the showbread.

Hebrews 9:1-2 (New King James Version)
1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary.

The second part is called the Holiest of All which contained the golden censer and the ark of the covenant.

What??? The "first part" is the "holy place". Inside of this area was a smaller room referred to as "the holy of holies", or "the holiest place". This is all just a description of the physical tabernacle. It was common knowledge for those who knew the .


In summary, I stand by my position that the books of Hebrews and Revelation are best understood in light of rabbinic midrashic literature. They are not intended to be taken in an extremely literal sense, but they do illustrate true principles. This sort of material demonstrates the point that the Bible should be read in a "literary" sense, rather than a woodenly literal way. The allegorical usages of the "heavenly tabernacle" and the "priesthood like Melchizedek" are excellent examples of this fact.

Shalom,

Mishkan David

[messimom]

EEK. Maybe this discussion should be moved to another thread, no one would ever know to look for it here.

But I have a couple of questions. What about pardes and Hebrews? Doesn't it come into play,and therefore shouldn't there be a literal understanding of Hebrews and symbolic? Or are you saying (Mishkan) that it shouldn't be COMPLETELY understood as literal and should be a mix in interpretation?

And within that, concerning the physicality of the temple and the future Jerusalem, or New Jerusalem, won't it come down to earth and be physical where the believers will dwell? So will it change from symbolic to literal when the time is right? Or do I need to look at my understanding of the future in a whole new way? Will it and us be spiritual beings more than physical beings? I know what the scriptures "say" but I've heard so many interpretations I don't know how to understand some of these prophetic verses.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom...

Messimom

[Mishkan]

messimom said:

EEK. Maybe this discussion should be moved to another thread, no one would ever know to look for it here.

Good point. I was thinking about that when I wrote that last post.

messimom said:

But I have a couple of questions.

Why am I not surprised?

messimom said:

What about pardes and Hebrews? Doesn't it come into play,and therefore shouldn't there be a literal understanding of Hebrews and symbolic? Or are you saying (Mishkan) that it shouldn't be COMPLETELY understood as literal and should be a mix in interpretation?

Great question!

Let me start off by making it clear that what I am about to say is a "present state" of my thinking. I was taught in high school that one should not keep saying, "in my opinion", since it is obvious that what I write is my opinion. So, my writing style sometimes comes across as somewhat dogmatic, or even beligerant. That is not my intention. Everything I write is open to clarification and modification.

That said, here's how I view Hebrews and Revelation, in the broader context of Biblical interpretation:

PaRDeS is a great tool when one is reading the . Clearly, it serves a great purpose when one wishes to dig for deeper, spiritual meaning within the commandments. It is good that you have learned about this technique of interpretation.

However, I don't think that PaRDeS applies to the Messianic writings, and especially to Hebrews and Revelation. Why? Because these letters have already taken the step of interpreting texts according to PaRDeS. That is, the writer of Hebrews has read the , seen the reference to a literal Tent of Meeting, and made a midrash on the text. That is, the "heavenly tabernacle" is, itself, a result of applying PaRDeS to a text. To seek a "deeper spiritual meaning" in the text of Hebrews is like trying to make a metaphor even "more metaphorical".

messimom said:

And within that, concerning the physicality of the temple and the future Jerusalem, or New Jerusalem, won't it come down to earth and be physical where the believers will dwell? So will it change from symbolic to literal when the time is right? Or do I need to look at my understanding of the future in a whole new way? Will it and us be spiritual beings more than physical beings? I know what the scriptures "say" but I've heard so many interpretations I don't know how to understand some of these prophetic verses.

Wow! Very profound questions, to be sure.

I have to tell you, I used to also accept a very literal meaning of "new Jerusalem" and "heavenly Jerusalem". However, I have been re-evaluating that approach for the past few years.

My present thinking is that the epistles that speak of this "heaven come to earth" are written by Jews who were familiar with the idea of anthropomorphism. It was common in Judaism to think of God as a "king", complete with a throne and a city to rule. This is the premise of much of the figurative language we find in the epistles.

So, here's how my thinking has been developing: Christian theology insists upon reading the literal aspects of the Bible (the commandments, the Promise of the Land, the earthly rule of Messiah) as allegorical; meanwhile, they insist on reading allegorical passages (the heavenly kingdom, Melchizedek, God's "throne") as literal. It is hard to shift our thinking, but I think we need to reverse what we have been taught in order to properly understand the writings of the Biblical authors. This will get us back to a right understanding of the relationship between obeying Hashem and looking forward to a spiritual reward in eternity.

messimom said:

Thank you for sharing your wisdom...

<blush> Well... I don't know that have such great wisdom to share. Just my little thoughts, that have served me fairly well for the past several years. If you can glean something good from what I write, then I will consider that a huge reward.

Shalom,

Mishkan

[Chizuk Emunah]

Well written Mishkan! I think a lot of us have to go through (sometimes intense) deprogramming to correct our thinking.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I appreciate everyone's comments on both sides of the issue not dealing with the subject of this thread. Although, we are off topic. The topic is, "The Real Indiana Jones and the Ark of the Covenant" which is based off of the first post in this thread. Please stay on topic or the thread will unfortunately be closed.

Todah chaverim,

Reuel

[Talmidah]

Don't they need the ashes of a red heifer to purify a temple, priests and levis BEFORE they reinstitute the temple sacrifices and services? until a red heifer is certified, and allowed to reach the age of 2, this won't happen. Of couse having everything ready and in place and the priests and levis trained will make it go smoother once the red heifer is ready.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Ahh, but they already have a red heifer...

[Talmidah]

I know there was one being evaluated, have they approved it?

[Talmidah]

Sorry Rick, somehow I overlooked your warning, is there a way to copy my post to a new thread? maybe, what is needed for the temple service to be restarted?

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

That is alright. Feel free to start a new thread or continue in a thread that coincides with this subject.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Wild Olive Branch]

Shalom;
I'd like to add something about what I have heard and learned about concerning the Ark of the Covenant. they way I have heard it explained is thus--it goes back to the time that Solomon built the Temple. he made it much larger than the first one--and the reason being this.Solomon set up the pillars in the porch of the Temple an he called the right pillar Jachin(base or fulcrum) and he set up the left pillar and called the name Boaz(force)
11Kings 7:21
Another interesting passage--1 Kings 7 :16- tells us that the height of those capitals were 5 cubits--but in 11 Kings 25:17 we learn that after the Chaldean took the items from the Temple and that the capital was only 3 cubits..so what happened?
It's my understanding that the answer is also partly found in this
passage " The Elohim said that He would dwell(shakan-an established place to inhabit) in the thick darkness( araphel-on a lower level) .normally--dwell is tabernacle, but supposedly not in this passage and I think the passage is 1 Kings ; but I cannot find it and I apologize for this.What had been built was an elevator
system in the Holy of Holies and a reverse lever system.I have heard it said that it was possible that after 500 years after the Temple had been built that Jeremiah was told in a dream to how to operate the system and get the Ark out.The Dome of the Spirits--underneath those arches is one big huge stone along with 4 other stones--key lock stones. The dome of the Rock is not where the Temple was--supposedly that is Herod's Temple.
The priest would go out to the base of the pillars and pound them in thus releasing a sand lever system(with a damper built in) and then go into the Holy of Holies and stand on those 4 key-locks.thus releasing the elevator enabling the Ark to get out.
The Ark is (and I hope I heard this correctly) suppost to resting
exactly under the site that Yeshua was crucified--the site where Abraham was going to offer his son Isaac. There is blood on the Ark---but it is on the WEST end of the Ark--not the east.
I understand that on the Day of Atonement, that the High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle the blood 7 times on the east end of the Ark.Always the east end.But this blood is on the west end. There's alot more to this concerning the Last Days--so if anyone is interested you can find this info at edited by Admin. I have also seen his tapes on the crossing of the Red Sea--Pharaoh's golden spoke chariot wheel at the bottom--the real Mt.Sinai--which is burnt toward the top--it has a fence all the way around it--and Sodom and Gomorrah. He even shows you what brimstone looks like...I never had to see these things to know that they really happened..but I honestly thought people would be exicted to see the real Red Sea Crossing...I've bought several of these tapes hoping and praying that people will wake it.They have never even watched them.It breaks my heart..

[Wild Olive Branch]

I forgot to add...I've shown people Scriptures to prove through The Word ,of the pagan ways that we have inherited.I've shown them the false gods and that it goes all the way back to babel with Nimrod,including the pagan holidays. I honestly thought that by showing these Wonderful findings that YHWH has unveiled in these days would peak their interest...but it doesnt. It's so ..