Priests

Gxg (G²) · Oct 31, 2013

Hoshiyya said:
The regular Levites did non-priestly things..

There were so many varied aspects to what it meant to be a priest and often the roles seemed to be interchangeable - even as it concerns offerings and ministry. And this concept was not forgotten among those within the Early Body of believers (including Barnabas - who himself was a Levite according to Acts 4:35-37 ) - many of them also aware of how other things many assumed to be only for the priests were also done by others as well such as certain kings who operated in the roles of Priest, Prophet and King simultaneously....in preview of the Messiah. Even King David's sons were priests according to scripture (2 Samuel 8:17-18) and there were others too who were in priests roles even though they themselves were NOT Levites or of Aaron's line....

More on the issue was discussed before in previous discussion here and here in the thread entitled Messianics and Dispensationalism - and for other places:

Gxg (G²);62761694 said:
Barnabas being a Levite opens the door for seeing other possibilities. One of the biggest examples being what's seen in the Book of Hebrews and its detailed descriptions of the Levitical priesthood/New Covenant. FOr many have supposed that it was Paul who was a possible author...and in light of Paul being trained by a Levite, it'd make more sense.

Granted, hough he was a Levite, Barnabas may not have been a priest (kohen), as only the sons of Aharon were priests (kohanim). In other words, only certain Levites, not all of them. They had to be descended from Aharon patrilineally.

But it never says in scripture/the Torah that others who aided the Sons of Aaron in the Temple or Tabernacle did not do priestly duties. They were simply not doing the main duties of the premier priests. With the Levites, when they set themselves apart during the Golden Calf incidence, God blessed their dedication...and in reward for their dedication, God replaced the first borns with the tribe of Levi. "

"Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother" (Exodus 32:29).

Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine, because all the firstborn are Mine. (Numbers 3:12-13).

The Levites then took on the duty of serving God.

"At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day" (Deuteronomy 10:8).

That service included serving the priests.

"And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the work for the children of Israel in the tabernacle of meeting (Numbers 8:19).

The other Levites who were not sons of a subordinate ministers appointed in the Mosaic Law for the service of the Tabernacle and of the Temple

Since all priests descend from Aaron, all priests are Levites. Yet all Levites are not priests the way that Aaron's descendants were, but they do serve the priests. Hence, you find mention of the priests and the Levites together, such as "And he gathered together all the leaders of Israel, with the priests and the Levites" (I Chronicles 23:2). One didn't have to be a priest as Aaron's sons in order to do priestly functions, just as Melchizedek didn't have to be of Aaron's line in order to be a priest Christ came from (Hebrews 7) and David didn't have to be of Aaron's line in order to be known as he was for having a priestly role as well as a prophet/king-role in what he did.

The sacred calling of the Levites is mentioned in various passages of the Pentateuch. ..as the author of the first chapters of Numbers, after recalling ( Exodus 28:29; Leviticus 8:9) the names and sacred functions of the sons of Aaron, adds the designation of the entire tribe of Levi who were to "stand in the sight of Aaron the priest to minister to him. And let them watch, and observe whatsoever appertaineth to the service of the multitude before the tabernacle of the testimony, and let them keep the vessels of the tabernacle, serving in the ministry thereof."

Though in Numbers 18:23, the special mission of the tribe is described broadly as a mediation between the Lord and his people, and though the Levite mentioned in the interesting a passage of Judges 17-18 is represented as exercising without qualification the functions of the priesthood, it is held by many commentators that at an early date a distinction was made between the priests of the family of Aaron and the simple Levites--a distinction which became very pronounced in the later religious history of God's people. The ceremonies with which the simple Levites were consecrated to the service of the Lord are described in Numbers 8:5-22. Besides their general function of assisting the priests, the Levites were assigned to carry the Tabernacle and its utensils, to keep watch about the sanctuary, etc. That is still a priestly duty...or a ministry role that was highly revered alongside the priesthood.

This is why, IMHO, it makes sense to say that Barnabas was a priest. As a Levite, he would have worked in the temple (been called to) and assisting those who were high priests (Sons of Aaron)--and although he would have not been in the position of priest as Aaron's sons were, there were more than enough other things he was called to teach..be it in knowing how to assist in the temple, the prescence of the Lord in the temple or what it was like to carry the Ark /do music and worship (as they were called to do, I Chronicles 9:1-34 and 1 Chronicles 15:11-17)

And when it comes to the terminology of "priests" it was never soley in reference to those who were Sons of Aarons.

Again, the Levites were formally set apart after the now-infamous incident with the golden calf idol that the Israelites made while Moses was away receiving The Ten Commandments from The Lord (Exodus chapter 32). Although others besides the Levites were righteous and not mentioned, scripture notes the Levites avoided the idolatry/actually killed 3,000 of those who were running wild, as ordered by Moses (Exodus 32:25-29). After the incident was over, Moses said of the Levites, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of The Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day." (Exodus 32:29). The Levites were natural allies of Moses because Moses himself was of the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1-2,10).

Levi had 3 sons - Gershon, Kohath, and Merari...and from those branches of the family, the Levites were organized into 3 levels of service:

The first level was composed of Aaron and his offspring, who were descended from Levi's son Kohath. They formed the priesthood.

The second level was made up of all of the other descendants of Kohath who were not descendants of Aaron. They were in charge of the most sacred parts of the Tabernacle (Numbers 3:27-32, 4:4-15, 7:9).

The third level consisted of all of the descendants of Gershon and Merari, who were given lesser duties (Numbers 3:21-26,33-37).

The Sons of Aaron were High priests, but the ministers who served in the temple as assistants were also known as priests as well (1 Chronicles 16:38-40, Nehemiah 3:1-3 ). Saying Barnabas was a Levite/priest isn't an issue, IMHO, since all Levites were considered priests due to their work in the temple assistance....even though the Levites descended from Aaron were the only ones who could be high priests and had a greater sense of weight with the term "priest"

2 Chronicles 11:14

13 The priests and Levites from all their districts throughout Israel sided with him. The Levites even abandoned their pasturelands and property and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had rejected them as priests of the LORD 15 when he appointed(D) his own priests(E) for the high places and for the goat(F) and calf(G) idols he had made.

Deuteronomy 18:1
[ Offerings for Priests and Levites ] The Levitical priestsindeed, the whole tribe of Leviare to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel.

The Early Church valued OT practice

Gxg (G²);60664539 said:

G
In the Levitical law, the priests received two particular portions of each peace offering: the "wave offering" of the breast and the "heave offering" (or better, "contribution") of the right thigh. The word translated "thigh" in the is shoq. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, "When shoq refers to a mans body it designates the lower part of the leg, the shank from the knees downward. When shoq refers to part of an animals body it designates the upper, thicker part of the leg." The word yarek is used to refer to the upper part of a mans leg (cf. Gen. 32:25, 32).

Shoq is used in the Mosaic law only with reference to the thigh of the peace offering. In Exodus 29:22-25, the right thigh of the ram of "filling" was to be burned with the peace offering, and the breast was to be given to Moses. Similarly, Leviticus 8:25-26 says that the right thigh was burned as an offering by fire at the ordination of the Aaron and his sons, and we are told in verse 29 that Moses took the breast for himself. In Leviticus 7:29-34, by contrast, the breast was to be shared by all the priests, while the right thigh was given to the officiating priest. And in Leviticus 9:21 and 10:14-15, the breast and thigh are said to belong to the priest, and must be eaten in a clean place. Exodus 29:27 specifically tells us that the breast and thigh of the ram of ordination was consecrated, but it does not say that they were eaten. Verse 28 seems to show that the priests should receive the breast and thigh from every peace offering.

Essentially, the right thigh of the ram of ordination was burned, but subsequently, the priest who offered the peace offering received the right thigh as his own. This makes sense when understanding how the Lord Himself and Moses were the officiating priests at the ordination of Aaron, since He and Moses received the priests portions.

The thigh was given directly to the officiating priest as a contribution so that it was for him and his family. The breast was given to God by the ritual of lifting it up and receiving it back again (. The things given to God were shared by all Gods special servants, the priests. In the ordination peace offering, the contribution-thigh was given to God, the officiating Priest, and thus turned into smoke as His "food" (Ex. 29:22-28). The offering-breast was also given to God, but was shared by all the other "meta-priests," who in this case were God and Moses. In any case, it is clear that the breast and right thigh were thereafter given to the priests. For a discussion, one can see James B. Jordan's work entitled "Incentive Dynamics in the Tabernacle Corporation"

In Leviticus 10:14-15, the priests had to eat the breast and thigh of the peace offering in a clean place. In contrast to the leftovers of the grain offerings, the thigh and breast did not have to be eaten in a holy place (cp. Lev. 10:12-13; 2:10). The thigh and breast were "holy" but not "most holy" (Nu. 6:20: breast and thigh are "holy for the priest"). This distinction between the grain and peace offering is consistent with the fact that some of the peace offering was eaten by the worshipper (Lev. 7:11-18). Another powerful passage to consider is the priestly passage of Numbers 18:18, which compares the meat of the firstborn, which belonged to the priest, to the meat of the breast and thigh.

The word for "breast," chazeh, is used nowhere outside of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Shoq, however, is used in other connections. In Deuteronomy 28:35, the Lord threatens to strike His unfaithful people with boils on their knees and legs (shoq), and Samson struck the Philistines "leg on thigh" (shoq `al yarek). Additionally, the fact that the right thigh is given to the priest is significant since the priest of Psalm 110 sits on the right hand of God. As the old saying goes, "you are what you eat,"..and of course, "you eat what you are." Truly, Priests eat priestly food

.

And in seeing all of this, one can see the full significance of what occurred with Saul. For In 1 Samuel 9:24, Samuel calls attention to the fact that he has set aside the shoq/thigh for Saul, indicating at least that the thigh is a portion reserved for an honored guest and perhaps indicating something of the priestly aspect of Sauls office.

.....There was a sense that the Kingship, under the Lord, was of a higher level than that of the Priesthood--and that is seen in the example of David who followed...and the Messiah later when they, as Kings (and priests) were with power over the Levitical priests.

Click to expand...

Gxg (G²) · Oct 31, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
The High Priest can only come through the Levites, more specifically, the Kohathites, more specifically, Aaron. And even though Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar were sons of Aaron, there can be only one High Priest at a time. So, it was Eleazar after Aaron, because Nadab and Abihu entered the holy of holies intoxicated, two men, not one, offering strange fire - whatever that might be - in any case, they were not following the commands of YHWH, they were doing their own thing.

If I may say..

I think it's worth noting that the issue of High Priesthood wasn't one that was an inflexible rule of always having to be one without cause for change if necessary..

1 Chronicles 16:36-40
Worship Before the Ark

37 So David left Asaph and his brothers there before the ark of the covenant of the Lord to minister regularly before the ark as each day required, 38 and also Obed-edom and his[a] sixty-eight brothers, while Obed-edom, the son of Jeduthun, and Hosah were to be gatekeepers. 39 And he left Zadok the priest and his brothers the priests before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon 40 to offer burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering regularly morning and evening, to do all that is written in the Law of the Lord that he commanded Israel.

David brought the ark to Jerusalem although the tabernacle was still at Gibeon with all of the other important materials (like the altar of burnt offering )/set-up. And we see this plainly in light of how later when David ill-advisedly took the census of Israel it was again noted, “For the tabernacle of the LORD and the altar of the burnt offering, which Moses had made in the wilderness, were at that time at the high place in Gibeon” (I Chronicles 21:29). His plan was to reunite the tabernacle and ark in a new temple at Jerusalem that would then become Israel's only worship center. The temple, however, not built until Solomon's time. In the meantime, Israel had two worship centers and two high priests, one at Gibeon and one at Jerusalem (More shared in 2 Samuel 19:10-12 and 1 Chronicles 21:28-30).

History wise, on the movement of the tabernacle itself:

For most of the Sinai wandering years, the Tabernacle was at Kadesh (Deuteronomy 1:46).

Immediately after entering the promised land under Joshua, The Tabernacle was located at Gilgal (Joshua 4:19), and the area of Shechem and Mount Ebal (Joshua 8:30-33).

The Tabernacle was then established firmly at Shiloh for many years (Joshua 18:1-10), continuing through all the period of the Judges.

Due to their sinful behavior, God allowed the Israelites to be defeated at Shiloh, at which time The Ark was captured by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:3,11). At this point did The Ark and the original Tabernacle parted company for many months, perhaps permanently when thinking on it. When The Ark was recovered from the Philistines 7 months later (1 Samuel 6:1), it was taken to Abinadab's house in Kiriath Jearim (1 Samuel 7:1).

Although The Ark is again mentioned in The Tabernacle of The Lord when it was later relocated at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39), there is some doubt as to whether it was the original Tabernacle. For when the Ark was later moved to Jerusalem by King David (2 Samuel 6:2), after temporarily staying in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:10), it was simply placed "inside the tent that David had pitched for it." (2 Samuel 6:17).

Also, as another noted best:

"According to Psalm 78, the Lord "forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh". The Ark then leaves Ephraim and goes to Kirjath-jearim, in Judah. But the Tabernacle takes a different route: it goes to Gibeon in Benjamin and stays there.

We notice too that the leadership of Israel transitions from Ephraim to Judah, by way of Saul, a Benjamite. So where the Ark is moved from Shiloh to Kirjath-jearim, the Tabernacle follows the king and goes to Gibeon. And in Gibeon, the Tabernacle (without the Ark) is apparently set up in the "great high place," and the priests continue the ceremonial order there, without the Ark

Gibeon was the spot others went to - and in fact, after Solomon becomes king, he offers 1000 sacrifices at Gibeon. (2 Chronicles 1:13 , 1 Kings 9:3)

And for reference:

But all of that is to say, within all of the transitions that the Tabernacle itself went through over the centuries, there were also transitions and changes that the priesthood went through with it due to the issue of necessity...and complication.

Due to duality of location, there was the necessity for the duality of a priesthood - and other factors came into the mix that were not planned for.

When Saul sent to Nob to murder all the priests in 1 Samuel 22 , Abiathar escaped the massacre, and fled to David in the wilderness. There he continued in the quality of high priest. But Saul, out of aversion to Ahimelech, whom he imagined to have betrayed his interests, transferred the dignity of the high priesthood from Ithamar's family into that of Eleazar, by conferring this office upon Zadok. Consequently, there were, at the same time, two high priests in Israel, Abiathar with David, and Zadok with Saul - and even after David took control, it remained as such until the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar, being attached to the party of Adonijah in his rebellion, was, by Solomon, divested of his priesthood.

For a good read/study on the issue, one can go to Samuel and his age: a study in the constitutional history of Israel

Although Zadok was of the line of Eleazar, he held the position of High Priest, at first, jointly or alternately, with Abiathar....and that changed due to the political choices that were made by the priests themselves. But prior to that, the concept of having 2 High Priests was not something that was deemed wrong in those times....

1 Chronicles 15:1-12

The Ark Brought to Jerusalem

... 2 Then David said that no one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever. 3 And David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem to bring up the ark of the Lord to its place, which he had prepared for it. 4 And David gathered together the sons of Aaron and the Levites: 5 of the sons of Kohath, Uriel the chief, with 120 of his brothers; 6 of the sons of Merari, Asaiah the chief, with 220 of his brothers; 7 of the sons of Gershom, Joel the chief, with 130 of his brothers; 8 of the sons of Elizaphan, Shemaiah the chief, with 200 of his brothers; 9 of the sons of Hebron, Eliel the chief, with 80 of his brothers; 10 of the sons of Uzziel, Amminadab the chief, with 112 of his brothers.

11 Then David summoned the priests Zadok and Abiathar, and the Levites Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel, and Amminadab, 12 and said to them, “You are the heads of the fathers' houses of the Levites. Consecrate yourselves, you and your brothers, so that you may bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it.

2 Samuel 8:16-18
6 Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army, and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder, 17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiah was secretary, 18 and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over[a] the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and David's sons were priests.

2 Samuel 15:24-35
24 And Abiathar came up, and behold, Zadok came also with all the Levites, bearing the ark of the covenant of God. And they set down the ark of God until the people had all passed out of the city. 25 Then the king said to Zadok, “Carry the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me back and let me see both it and his dwelling place. 26 But if he says, ‘I have no pleasure in you,’ behold, here I am, let him do to me what seems good to him.” 27 The king also said to Zadok the priest, “Are you not a seer? Go back[e] to the city in peace, with your two sons, Ahimaaz your son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar. 28 See, I will wait at the fords of the wilderness until word comes from you to inform me.” 29 So Zadok and Abiathar carried the ark of God back to Jerusalem, and they remained there.

30 But David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, barefoot and with his head covered. And all the people who were with him covered their heads, and they went up, weeping as they went. 31 And it was told David, “Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” And David said, “O Lord, please turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.”

32 While David was coming to the summit, where God was worshiped, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat torn and dirt on his head. 33 David said to him, “If you go on with me, you will be a burden to me. 34 But if you return to the city and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; as I have been your father's servant in time past, so now I will be your servant,’ then you will defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel. 35 Are not Zadok and Abiathar the priests with you there? So whatever you hear from the king's house, tell it to Zadok and Abiathar the priests.

To me, it's wild how the Dual High Priesthoods in Zadok and Abiathar do represent the two lines of Eleazar and Ithamar (both sons of Aaron) - for Numbers 3:3-5 and1 Chronicles 24:1-3 say "But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office."

Eleazar and Ithamar would be the priests under their father, Aaron, who was high priest....I Chronicles 24:3-5 says "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of IthamarThus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors [of the house] of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar." Of the children of Ithamar and of Eleazar, there was no order of importance, so the various tasks were decided by lot. The sons of Eleazar are allotted the governorship of the sanctuary and they would work under their father, Eleazar. As complicated as things were, to have 2 high priests was not against scripture or commands - and thus, there's fulfillment of that in Zadok and Abiathar with simultaneous ministry (with the Lord doing much through it - even as it concerns Ahimelech who was the father of Abiathar and who helped David greatly with provision before in 1 Samuel 21 prior to his being killed alongside the other priests of Nob by Saul) - even though others in a way see it like competition occurring - and it is intriguing when seeing who the line of High Priesthood was designated to be and yet to see who came into the position later after one was exiled does make you pause. In light of the thought of both Zadok and Abiathar as High Priests, of course, I'm aware of where you and I have had disagreement before on the matter as it concerns lineages with Zadok and others - as noted before in #20 /other places

sevengreenbeans · Nov 1, 2013

As I was looking into this topic, it seems to be accurate to say Levites who are priests are all those who are High-Priest-in-waiting, descended from Aaron, a Kohathite.

Only one can be High Priest, descended from Aaron, a Kohathite.

Levites who are not priests are all Kohathites not descended from Aaron, all Merarites, and all Gershonites.

Levites, priests, and High Priest are all set apart unto YHWH.
The Levites are in service to the priests and High Priest.
Priests are in service to the High Priest.

sevengreenbeans · Nov 1, 2013

Thomas L Cossette said:
I have read Torah cover to cover many times, I always took it for granted I guess, that all the duties of the Levites were priestly duties of one sort or another. I always assumed only the high priest made the sacrifices in the Holy of Holies. I also assumed other Kohaths made sacrifices in the holy place just the sheer number of sin offering done would make it impossible for only the high Priest to do it all, at least that is what I thought. I will read it again and get my ducks (goats) in a row.

The people would bring their sacrifices/offerings to the priests, where the priest would supervise. Sometimes the person bringing the sacrifice would do the slaughter, sometimes the priest. A priest could gather the blood for a sin offering, but could not carry it to the Holy place. The trespass (sin) offering would require the High Priest to carry some of the blood to the Holy place for atonement, and the High Priest was the only one who could accomplish this task.

Sin offerings have two categories, purification and trespass.

Purification offerings would be done throughout the year, whereas, perhaps, trespass offerings were done once a year at Yom Kippur. Purification offerings did not require blood to be taken to the holy of holies. This type of offering could be eaten.

Trespass offerings required the blood to be taken to the holy of holies and the High Priest went in to the holy of holies once a year on Yom Kippur. This type of sacrifice was for atonement, which is also what Yom Kippur is all about. This type of offering could not be eaten.

Both types are referred to as "sin-offerings", it is up to the reader to discern. The way they are discerned - can it be eaten? Is the blood taken to the holy of holies? Is it burnt? Is it for purification? Is it for trespass?

Anyhow, I hope this helps.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 1, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
As I was looking into this topic, it seems to be accurate to say Levites who are priests are all those who are High-Priest-in-waiting, descended from Aaron, a Kohathite.

Only one can be High Priest, descended from Aaron, a Kohathite.

Levites who are not priests are all Kohathites not descended from Aaron, all Merarites, and all Gershonites.

Levites, priests, and High Priest are all set apart unto YHWH.
The Levites are in service to the priests and High Priest.
Priests are in service to the High Priest.

Indeed, the Lord himself noted that ALL Levites (including the Levites who are not priests ) were set a part for the Lord's service (Numbers 1:49-51 Numbers 3:8-10 /Numbers 3 /Numbers 8 Numbers 18 Numbers 35 Deuteronomy 12:18-20 Deuteronomy 18 )

Nonetheless, on the issue of One High Priest, there's no real way of getting past (as Numbers 3:3-5 and1 Chronicles 24:1-3 state) that "But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office."

And scriptural history already shows where there can be more than one High Priest - as seen in the example of Zadok and Abithar in their simultaneous work.

Again, Eleazar and Ithamar would be the priests under their father, Aaron, who was high priest....I Chronicles 24:3-5 says "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar. Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors [of the house] of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar."

Of the children of Ithamar and of Eleazar, there was no order of importance, so the various tasks were decided by lot. The sons of Eleazar are allotted the governorship of the sanctuary and they would work under their father, Eleazar. As complicated as things were, to have 2 high priests was not against scripture or commands - and thus, there's fulfillment of that in Zadok and Abiathar with simultaneous ministry (with the Lord doing much through it - even as it concerns Ahimelech who was the father of Abiathar and who helped David greatly with provision before in 1 Samuel 21 prior to his being killed alongside the other priests of Nob by Saul). I see no real way of escaping the fact that Israel had two worship centers and two high priests, one at Gibeon and one at Jerusalem (More shared in 2 Samuel 19:10-12 and 1 Chronicles 21:28-30).

But they - Zadok and Abithar - were both High Priests at the same time....in two different locations. Of course, this is not new - nor something that's really a negative when seeing the reality of how the same concept showed up in the time of Yeshua when he had one named John the Baptist (descended from the priesthood) anoint/proclaim him as the High Priest was to do (more shared in #2/#7 / #10 ) - even though it was the case that the High Priesthood in Jerusalem also was present and didn't necessarily believe in the Messiah.....

sevengreenbeans · Nov 1, 2013

Gxg (G²);Nonetheless, on the issue of One High Priest, there's no real way of getting past (as Numbers 3:3-5 and1 Chronicles 24:1-3 state) that "But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office."

And scriptural history already shows where there can be more than one High Priest - as seen in the example of Zadok and Abithar in their simultaneous work.

Yes, one High Priest: Aaron. Numerous priests: Eleazar and Ithamar, and their sons. Upon Aaron's death, Eleazar became High Priest (one High Priest), while Ithamar remained priest, as well as Ithamar's sons and Eleazar's sons remained priests (Numerous priests).

The example of Zadok's and Abiathar's simultaneous work in the High Priest's office goes against the example given in the Torah.

Again, Eleazar and Ithamar would be the priests under their father, Aaron, who was high priest....I Chronicles 24:3-5 says "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar. Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors [of the house] of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar."

Of the children of Ithamar and of Eleazar, there was no order of importance, so the various tasks were decided by lot. The sons of Eleazar are allotted the governorship of the sanctuary and they would work under their father, Eleazar. As complicated as things were, to have 2 high priests was not against scripture or commands - and thus, there's fulfillment of that in Zadok and Abiathar with simultaneous ministry (with the Lord doing much through it - even as it concerns Ahimelech who was the father of Abiathar and who helped David greatly with provision before in 1 Samuel 21 prior to his being killed alongside the other priests of Nob by Saul). I see no real way of escaping the fact that Israel had two worship centers and two high priests, one at Gibeon and one at Jerusalem (More shared in 2 Samuel 19:10-12 and 1 Chronicles 21:28-30).

Can there be more than one holy of holies? What is on earth is a picture of what is in heaven, so having more than one holy of holies on earth causes those on earth to question. For, where would we pilgrimage to appear before the L-RD? Does He sit upon two thrones? For every truth, there is a counterfeit, perhaps even multiple counterfeits.

But they - Zadok and Abithar - were both High Priests at the same time....in two different locations. Of course, this is not new - nor something that's really a negative when seeing the reality of how the same concept showed up in the time of Yeshua when he had one named John the Baptist (descended from the priesthood) anoint/proclaim him as the High Priest was to do (more shared in #2/#7 / #10 ) - even though it was the case that the High Priesthood in Jerusalem also was present and didn't necessarily believe in the Messiah.....

Gxg (G²) · Nov 1, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
Yes, one High Priest: Aaron. Numerous priests: Eleazar and Ithamar, and their sons. Upon Aaron's death, Eleazar became High Priest, while Ithamar remained priest.
.

Eleazar became the High Priest not because Ithamar was not qualified nor because Ithamar's line was never destined to be High Priest at some point. While Aaron was alive, Eleazar served at The Tabernacle In The Wilderness together with his brother Ithamar, however Eleazar was given added responsibilities, such as in the sacrifice of the red heifer ( Numbers 19 ).

Later, when the time came for Aaron to die, on Mount Hor Eleazar's uncle Moses removed the sacred vestments from Aaron and placed them on Eleazar (Numbers 20:22-29) and later assisted Moses in the census (Numbers 26:3-4) and in the later transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua....while also assisting Joshua in distribution of the Tribal Lands (Joshua 14:1).

Of course the office of high priest continued through Eleazar's descendants until Eli (due to Eli's sins - with his sons being punished) - and thus, Ahimelech becomes central. In the Hebrew Bible, when we see the Ahimelech(father)/Abiathar(son) team, these two are the direct descendants of Ahitub (thus the priestly line of Eleazar).

When we see the Abiathar(father)/Ahimelech(son) team, these two are the direct descendants of Ichabod (thus the priestly line of Ithamar). Thus the man who gave to David and his men the sacred consecrated bread to eat was Ahimelech (the son), who served at the time when his father Abiathar was the priest. One can see 1 Chronicles 18:16 in addition to 1 Sam 21:1-9 compared with Mark 2:26. Ichabod and Ahitub happened to be brothers (1 Samuel 14:3), but they had different fathers. That is, according to this verse the father of Ichabod was Phineas, and of course the father of Ahitub was Amariah (according to 1 Chronicles 6:7 and 1 Chronicles 6:11).

To others, what is confusing is that there are two sets of people in the SAME tribe of Levi (priests from both the line of Eleazar and Ithamar) with the SAME names occurring in the SAME passages with limited clarification by the authors of the texts of exactly who is who.

For clarification, the father of Phineas was Eliin the priestly line of Ithamar compared to the priestly line of Eleazar. And we know that the Abiathar who was fired as a priest by King Solomon is the Abiathar who is the descendant of Eli (and therefore from the priestly line of Ithamar per 1 Kings 2:26-27).

Essentially, the good Abiathar moves in and takes the bad Abiathar's job in 1 Kings 4:4. Another way of saying it was that the bad Abiathar was not one of the eighty-five men who wor, who received the divine judgment from God that all the priestly descendants of Eli would die young according to 1 Sam 2:31-33 -- meaning that no one in the priestly line of Eli would live to grow old. This can be seen, for example, in how 1 Chronicles 24:1-4 indicates that there were many less men available e the linen ephod and who were killed by Saul in 1 Samuel 22:18....and the other Abiathar (the good Abiathar), who occurs in the same time and space, and who also escaped this massacre, goes and helps David.

It is this goodwill which eventually postured him to replace the bad Abiathar - and this good Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech, who is the son of Ahitub, who is the son of Amariah (which takes us back to the priestly line through Eleazar) - again going to show that the good Abiathar has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the priestly line of Eli (descendants of the priestly line of Ithamar) as was the case with the bad Abiathar.

Ahimelech who was the father of Abiathar helped David greatly with provision/inquiring of the Lord for David in 1 Samuel 21:1 prior to his being killed alongside the other priests of Nob by Saul in 1 Samuel 22 ...and Abiathar coming to be High Priest in David's time as he brought the ephod/other items in helping David on the run according to 1 Samuel 23/ 1 Samuel 30

Mark 2:25-27
In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.

Abiathar ended up being the one who offered sacrifices in Jerusalem until all the people had finished leaving the city when David fled from Absalom in 2 Samuel 15:23-25 - although Zadok was assigned to another location to do ministry.

And with Eleazar's line, it was later restored with Zadok (1 Samuel 2:30-36, 1 Kings 2:26-35) after Abiathar fell. Zadok was a patrilineal descendant of Eleazar the son of Aaron the high priest - and the lineage of Zadok is presented in the genealogy of Ezra (his descendant) as being of ninth generation of direct patrilineal descent from Phineas the son of Eleazar; Ezra 7:1/Ezra 7:1-3 - noted also in I Chronicles 6)...honored later on in history ( Ezekiel 44:14-16 Ezekiel 43:18-20/ Ezekiel 43 Ezekiel 40:45-47 / Ezekiel 40 Ezekiel 48 )..

As confusing as it may be, the confusion is understandable when one sees in the genealogy of Levi, for example, in 1 Chronicles 6 the names of the priests are repeated several times in the same family tree (e.g., the names of Elkanah, Ahitub, and Amariah occur several times among the Levites). Consequently, it is no surprise then that two Abiathars and two Ahimelechs also create confusion when they happen to exist and live in the same time and space of David and Solomon. To emphasize the point, it is not uncommon even in our modern era to find the same relatives, be it cousins, aunts, and uncles, and even fathers & sons, who happen to share the same christened names (not to mention middle names) amongst themselves.

But on Eleazar becoming High Priest at one point, that really doesn't change where God never said it had to be from Eleazar's line that the role of High Priest occurred in the time of Aaron. It was a matter of simply seeing where it fell and what occurred - and what God sanctioned/condoned in the ministry of King David when it came to Abiathar as High Priest.

The example of Zadok's and Abiathar's simultaneous work in the High Priest's office goes against the example given in the Torah.

IMHO, that really cannot be said on the basis of what the Torah already notes when it comes to ministry often having exceptions in specific circumstances and God often making that plain in Torah. God already had multiple times of making it rather plain where things noted in Torah at one point had differing commands given later than either complimented it - or were different in regards to the way the Lord often did things vastly different as it concerns progression/progressive revelation....things given in sequence and others not taking things that are descriptive as a matter of prescription of how it was ALWAYS supposed to be. For just because it occurred at one time or another doesn't equate to God saying "This is how it is ALWAYS supposed to be" (more shared discussion here and here in the thread entitled Messianics and Dispensationalism).

The tabernacle model was not the model for all time since it evolved into the Temple model - with that changing later as it concerns what occurred with the saints......and the same with sacrifices/a host of other aspects. In many respects, this is no different than the concept of David's Tent (noted in Amos) being the model for the New Covenant according to Acts 15 rather than what happened in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness (as shared in the thread entitled .. The Sukkah of David and the Davidic Covenant (#78 ) ...or Joshua himself (although NOT a Levite) actually present in the Tabernacle (as shared before in #30) - or with ministry in where the Spirit dwelled varying from the wilderness era (more shared in #4). ..or with Elijah fed by unclean ravens (#89 ) or Hosea commanded to marry an unclean prostitute. There are MANY examples directly in the Tanak...

With Torah giving previews, having TWO High priests is no different than seeing the work of the Holy Spirit and Yeshua together - both sanctifying us (Titus ) and helping us in our struggles for perfection. It's already heavy enough to consider The Holy Spirit and Prayer - seeing that it's already the case that both the Holy Spirit/Ruach Ha Kodesh and Yeshua intercede for us in priestly manner (just as Jesus worked in the Power of the Holy Spirit when on Earth)- both accomplishing the work of standing in the gap for us to be renewed/redeemed.....some noting that Jesus helps our prayers in Heaven and the Holy Spirit helps our prayers on earth (one being in the Temple in the Heavenlies, the other being in the Temple of our Bodies/Spirits).....some of this similar to the early Judaic concept of "The Two Powers in Heaven"

Romans 8:27
...We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for Gods people in accordance with the will of God.

Romans 8:34
Christ Jesus who diedmore than that, who was raised to lifeis at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Titus 2:13-15
11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say No to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hopethe appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Titus 3:4-6
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.

What is on earth is a picture of what is in heaven, so having more than one holy of holies on earth causes those on earth to question. For, where would we pilgrimage to appear before the L-RD? Does He sit upon two thrones?

To ask whether or not there can be more than one Holy of Holies is akin (IMHO) to asking whether or not God can be ALL PLACES at once (with the assumption being He can be only ONE place at a given time when speaking to others).....and that question would miss where the Lord often spoke to others simultaneously and chose to speak to others in differing places throughout scripture.

God already noted multiple times within scripture the dynamic of not all being able to pilgrimage to the same place and how to deal with that - Jerusalem itself never being the main place HE Declared was to be where others went to for all time (as prior to that, people like the patriarchs made altars before the Lord He honored - #52 ).

Moreover, God is OUTSIDE of time - and thus, not limited by physical boundaries we are used to. His ability to be in PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE all at once is beyond our comprehension - and what happens on Earth is a reflection of His vast ability. Thus, being able to be in two places and TWO Holy of Holies is a testament to that. To have TWO Holy of Holies doesn't indicate such has not occurred in the Heavelines since the Lord is everywhere - and even before the Tabernacle or the Temple was Set up, the Earth could not contain him (2 Chronicles 2:5-7 / Isaiah 66 ) and it was noted directly by Stephen...

Acts 7:48-50.
.... the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

49 Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?

Gxg (G²) · Nov 1, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
Sin offerings have two categories, purification and trespass.

Purification offerings would be done throughout the year, whereas, perhaps, trespass offerings were done once a year at Yom Kippur. Purification offerings did not require blood to be taken to the holy of holies. This type of offering could be eaten.

Trespass offerings required the blood to be taken to the holy of holies and the High Priest went in to the holy of holies once a year on Yom Kippur. This type of sacrifice was for atonement, which is also what Yom Kippur is all about. This type of offering could not be eaten

Both types are referred to as "sin-offerings", it is up to the reader to discern. The way they are discerned - can it be eaten? Is the blood taken to the holy of holies? Is it burnt? Is it for purification? Is it for trespass?

sevengreenbeans · Nov 9, 2013

Anointed priest = High Priest

Eleazar and Ithamar and their sons served as priests. When Aaron died, Eleazar received Aaron's garments and was consecrated (anointed) as High Priest. Exodus 29. A consecration takes place over a seven day period. The office of the High Priest was passed father to son. Ithamar, Ithamar's sons, and Eleazar's sons served as priests to the High Priest Eleazar. As long as there were living descendants of Eleazar to fill the office of High Priest, the descendants of Ithamar remained as priests. The descendants of Ithamar would only become eligible for High Priest if Eleazar's male lineage died out. Having two High Priests at the same time in two different locations goes against the example given to us in the Torah. Does G-d sit on two thrones? Does He have two footstools? Can we serve two masters? If the pilgrimage is too far, we are not told to pick a place closer to us. G-d is not limited by physical boundaries. Humans are, however, limited by the physical boundaries instituted by G-d. This is not about Him speaking or not speaking to people, this is about His Place. He left His place to bring Israel out of Egypt. He remained with them until He returned to His Place. This place on earth corresponds to His Place in the heavenlies. The patriarchs built and rebuilt altars in this place. Covenant renewals.
Challenge: study the Torah portions beginning in Genesis 1 with good maps of Israel and surrounding areas, a notebook for keeping detailed notes, visit public, private, and online libraries, make use of archaeological and historical information. The place which will be revealed time and time again is not the place you might expect it to be.
King Solomon lacked the authority to "fire" a priest. A High Priest is High Priest through birthright, not by job application. Unless he is a counterfeit, perhaps.
The showbread is holy, because it has been set before the L-RD. It can therefore only be eaten by priests. Exodus 29. I believe Yeshua was making a contrast. Lawful vs. Unlawful. Fences instituted by man vs. fences instituted by G-d. The corners of a field were to be left for the poor (needy or hungry) and the travelers. Leviticus 23:22. Another example is what is found about the Shemittah in Leviticus 25:6. Yeshua and his companions were eating on the Sabbath. David and his companions were eating of the holy, when they could have eaten from the corners of a field, instead. Red flag. Leviticus 22 (especially 22:10). Abiathar was High Priest, but Ahimelech was taking the showbread from the table. This job was to be carried out by the High Priest. (Side note: the ephod is only to be worn by the High Priest. David put on an ephod, as well. Red flag.) 1Chronicles 22:1 "David said". The text doesn't say "YHWH said". I agree with Stephen in Acts 7. Human imaginations vs. Pattern shown to Moses. Fame and glory vs. Humble abode. None of what is found in 1Chronicles 22 describes the Tabernacle according to the pattern shown to Moshe. What is being described is a house made with human hands, out of the imagination of a man, built by the will of a man.

HannibalFlavius · Nov 9, 2013

A family assigned to vowels.

When the law was read, it was read with a man using sign language for different vowels.

It was like one family would have secrets to their own duties, how to mix aromas, or this or that.

There is so much to study with every little thing.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 10, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
Anointed priest = High Priest

Eleazar and Ithamar and their sons served as priests. When Aaron died, Eleazar received Aaron's garments and was consecrated (anointed) as High Priest.

Eleazar being anointed as High Priest does not change where it was not one of his descendants who ended up being allowed by the Lord to run in the place of High Priest - both Eleazar and Ithamar were in the line-up and it was chosen (at that time when Aaron was alive) for Eleazar to be High Priest - but there's nothing within scripture showing at any point where Ithamar's descendants would not take that up ...

sevengreenbeans said:
Anointed priest = High Priest

Eleazar and Ithamar and their sons served as priests. When Aaron died, Eleazar received Aaron's garments and was consecrated (anointed) as High Priest.

Eleazar being anointed as High Priest does not change where it was not one of his descendants who ended up being allowed by the Lord to run in the place of High Priest - both Eleazar and Ithamar were in the line-up and it was chosen (at that time when Aaron was alive) for Eleazar to be High Priest - but there's nothing within scripture showing at any point where Ithamar's descendants would not take that up ...

Of course, Ithamar was consecrated as a priest along with his father and three brothers - Nadab, Abihu and Eleazar (Ex. 28:1). His job was to number the articles collected for the Tabernacle (Ex.38:21) and to supervise two priestly families, the Gershonites and the Merarites (Num. 4:21-33). Ithamar's family eventually lost the high priesthood, it continued as a priestly family after the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 8:2)....and it's definitely accurate that his line worked as High Priest at one point - as Aaron High Priest moved to the line of Ithamar - as the high priest Eli was a descendant of Ithamar. Ithamar belonged to the tribe of Levi.

More at The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments

According to 2Sa 15:24, 35; 20:25, Abiathar is mentioned as the person conjoined in David's time with Zadok, in the collegiate exercise of the high priesthood. Some think that the words have been transposed, reading Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. But there is no ground for regarding the text as faulty. The high priests of the line of Ithamar were the following: Ahiah or Ahimelech, his son Abiathar, his son Ahimelech. The author of the Chronicles was acquainted with Ahimelech, son of Abiathar, who, for some reason, discharged the duties of high priest in David's reign, and during the lifetime of his father (for Abiathar was living in the time of Solomon, 1Ki 2:27)

Exodus 29. A consecration takes place over a seven day period. The office of the High Priest was passed father to son. Ithamar, Ithamar's sons, and Eleazar's sons served as priests to the High Priest Eleazar. As long as there were living descendants of Eleazar to fill the office of High Priest, the descendants of Ithamar remained as priests. The descendants of Ithamar would only become eligible for High Priest if Eleazar's male lineage died out. Having two High Priests at the same time in two different locations goes against the example given to us in the Torah.

There's nothing within the Torah saying that having two high priests is illegal, seven - just as there's nothing saying that David setting up the Tabernacle as he did while appointed/rearranging Levites was against God's design since it was not fully in line with the Mosaic custom. There's the aspect of Progressive Revelation - and Eleazar being chosen does not mean only his descendants are allowed to be High Priest since there were other sons of Aaron. It was simply a matter of choice at the time.

And if the scriptures are to be the standard, there's no escaping where the Lord allowed/condoned having TWO High Places at the same time. Our not agreeing with that does not change where it was noted within His scripture and using both priests to do ministry in the time of David.

As said before, the tabernacle model was not the model for all time since it evolved into the Temple model - with that changing later as it concerns what occurred with the saints......and the same with sacrifices/a host of other aspects.....and in many respects, this is no different than the concept of David's Tent (noted in Amos) being the model for the New Covenant according to Acts 15 rather than what happened in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness (as shared in the thread entitled .. The Sukkah of David and the Davidic Covenant (#78 ) ...or Joshua himself (although NOT a Levite) actually present in the Tabernacle (as shared before in #30) - or with ministry in where the Spirit dwelled varying from the wilderness era (more shared in #4). ..or with Elijah fed by unclean ravens (#89 ) or Hosea commanded to marry an unclean prostitute. There are MANY examples directly in the Tanak...

Does G-d sit on two thrones? Does He have two footstools? Can we serve two masters?

To ask whether God sits on two thrones (assuming he can only be in one) is akin to asking whether or not God can be ALL Places at once or if He's limited - and to assume that suggesting God contains/rules over ALL of creation is a matter of serving "two masters" is going counter to what the scriptures note with God's dominion being present everywhere - God is God..

If the pilgrimage is too far, we are not told to pick a place closer to us. G

Not according to the examples within the Torah, especially when it came to sacrifices being made and where the Lord made provision for others in multiple places.

And it is with that in mind that man cannot place physical boundaries onto the Lord or scripture where no such things exist - nor where such boundaries made go against the example of scripture...and with David's example, there was allowance/God speaking through BOTH High Priests in both locations repeatedly. That cannot be ignored if we're to be faithful to the text of what the Tanak speaks of.

This is not about Him speaking or not speaking to people, this is about His Place. He left His place to bring Israel out of Egypt. He remained with them until He returned to His Place. This place on earth corresponds to His Place in the heavenlies. The patriarchs built and rebuilt altars in this place. Covenant renewals.
Challenge: study the Torah portions beginning in Genesis 1 with good maps of Israel and surrounding areas, a notebook for keeping detailed notes, visit public, private, and online libraries, make use of archaeological and historical information. The place which will be revealed time and time again is not the place you might expect it to be.

There's nothing within scripture saying God ever left His place - and one would have to assume such an idea before addressing what the scriptures say on the Lord coming to deliver Israel. God rules from the Heavens and is everywhere - his throne beyond our comprehsnsion as well as his Omiprescence (Psalm 139 recounting that in detail).

Others have long done the Study of Torah portions with maps of Israel - and have noted that there is no ONE place the Lord ever left to come. It's not a new concept, S.

King Solomon lacked the authority to "fire" a priest. A High Priest is High Priest through birthright, not by job application. Unless he is a counterfeit, perhaps.
The showbread is holy, because it has been set before the L-RD. It can therefore only be eaten by priests. Exodus 29.

Nowhere was it ever shown in scripture that Solomon lacked authority to "fire" a priest - as he already did so with the removal of the one in the position....just as David had authority to impact the priesthood as well regardless of the fact that he was from Judah.

I believe Yeshua was making a contrast. Lawful vs. Unlawful. Fences instituted by man vs. fences instituted by G-d. The corners of a field were to be left for the poor (needy or hungry) and the travelers. Leviticus 23:22. Another example is what is found about the Shemittah in Leviticus 25:6. Yeshua and his companions were eating on the Sabbath. David and his companions were eating of the holy, when they could have eaten from the corners of a field, instead. Red flag. Leviticus 22 (especially 22:10). Abiathar was High Priest, but Ahimelech was taking the showbread from the table. This job was to be carried out by the High Priest. (Side note: the ephod is only to be worn by the High Priest. David put on an ephod, as well. Red flag.) 1Chronicles 22:1 "David said". The text doesn't say "YHWH said".

One has to assume from the text that anything not noting "YHWH said" is equivalent to it not being of the Lord - which, in that case, would mean many things promoted within and allowed within Rabbinical Judaism or Samaritan culture and many other things in the Spirit of the Lord are automatically off.....and it reads past A LOT of things which Yeshua noted to be of focus when it came to the example of God's heart in the matter.

I'm aware of what Yeshua noted in Matthew 12:4-6/Matthew 12 when referring to the examples of David with the Showbread and the Priests continually doing ministry on the Sabbath (i.e. attending to the Temple/Tabernacle, offerings/sacrifices, etc.) - for the priests must perform duties even on the Sabbath.

Numbers 28:9

Sabbath Offerings

9 On the Sabbath day, make an offering of two lambs a year old without defect, together with its drink offering and a grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah[a] of fine flour mixed with oil. 10 This is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
Monthly Offerings

11 On the first of every month, present to the Lord a burnt offering of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs a year old, all without defect. 12 With each bull there is to be a grain offering of three-tenths of an ephah[b] of fine flour mixed with oil; with the ram, a grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil; 13 and with each lamb, a grain offering of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil. This is for a burnt offering, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the Lord by fire. 14 With each bull there is to be a drink offering of half a hin[c] of wine; with the ram, a third of a hin[d]; and with each lamb, a quarter of a hin. This is the monthly burnt offering to be made at each new moon during the year.

Additionally, from what I've seen in the scriptures, Israelites could honour their ceremonial laws above the Sabbath law. Jesus Himself declared: John 7:21-23 "Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?"

Rules and Procedures for circumcisng on the sabbath had been developed in Jewish tradition. According to Leviticus 12:2-4/ Leviticus 12, circumcision was noted to be on the 8th day ..and the law of Moses stated that every male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day in honor of what the Lord told Abraham: Gen 17:12 "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household." If this day happened to fall on the Sabbath day, the child would be circumcised, despite the fact that this was working on the Sabbath day of rest - and that is something I have to consider when studying Sabbath and seeing the ways that the days for when it lands on Sabbath can shift...the aspect of progressive revelation.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 10, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
The corners of a field were to be left for the poor (needy or hungry) and the travelers. Leviticus 23:22. Another example is what is found about the Shemittah in Leviticus 25:6. Yeshua and his companions were eating on the Sabbath. David and his companions were eating of the holy, when they could have eaten from the corners of a field, instead. Red flag. Leviticus 22 (especially 22:10). Abiathar was High Priest, but Ahimelech was taking the showbread from the table. This job was to be carried out by the High Priest. (Side note: the ephod is only to be worn by the High Priest. David put on an ephod, as well. Red flag.) 1Chronicles 22:1 "David said". The text doesn't say "YHWH said".

I'd disagree since text never says at all that David was guilty/to be condemned for eating the Showbread. As one individual said it best:

Even the slightest activity involving picking grain—removing the husks, rubbing the heads, cleaning or bruising the ears or throwing them up in the hand—was forbidden. Yet if a man wanted to move a sheaf on his field, he had only to lay a spoon on it; then, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! It should be noted that, unlike the Pharisees (whose numbers were relatively few), most Jews of Jesus' day paid little attention to these petty rules.

When the Pharisees complained about Jesus' disciples plucking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus (as He often did) was able to point out the contradictions in Pharisaic law. Jesus noted how David and his followers, famished and fleeing for their lives, ate the shewbread when no other food was available, though it was normally only for the priests to eat (Matthew 12:3–4; Mark 2:25–26; Luke 6:3–4; 1 Samuel 21:1–6). Even the Pharisaic law agreed with the original written law on this point, vindicating what David chose to do when his life was in danger (Edersheim, Book II, 2.58). Jesus simply said: "Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:6–8). Of course, the Sabbath commandment is in a separate category from the sacrificial ordinances. Yet since Jewish law permitted the feeding and watering of animals on the Sabbath to relieve unnecessary suffering, this principle would logically and naturally extend to human beings—in this case, Jesus' disciples—who were partaking of the only food readily available at that time.

This controversy would never have been possible were it not for the Pharisees' exaggerated views about actions forbidden or allowed on the Sabbath. The priests in the Temple worked on the Sabbath, yet were guiltless (Matthew 12:5). The scribes knew this, but apparently did not clearly understand why it was so. Somehow, they missed the point that God instituted the Sabbath not only to give human beings rest from physical labors, but also to give them a time to devote to God by doing His works and serving Him. The disciples' actions were "clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law" (Edersheim, Book II, 2.56). Jesus said that the Pharisees, not understanding the law, had "condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). Clearly, disciples were falsely accused, and were not guilty of breaking the Sabbath as charged.

Something else that may be worth considering in regards to the grain incident is that Jesus and his disciples weren't even technically stealing in the first place when they ate grain. Leviticus 19:9-10 and Deuteronomy 23:25 say that farmers were to leave the edges of their fields unharvested so that some of their crops could be picked by travelers and by the poor. Just as walking on a sidewalk is not trespassing on private property, picking heads of grain at the edge of a field was not stealing. Moreover, God's law said that crops could not be harvested on the Sabbath (Exodus 34:21) and this law prevented the farmers from becoming greedy and ignoring God on the Sabbath. It also protected them and laborers from being overworked.

With Jewish legal tradition, there were 39 categories of activities forbidden on the Sabbath--and harvesting was one of them. The teachers of the law even went so far as to describe different methods of harvesting. One method was to rub the heads of grain betweent he hands, as the disciples were doing.

The Pharisees interpreted the actio of Jesus and his disciples as harvesting...and so they judged Yeshua as a "law-breaker"...but Jesus and his disciples clearly were not harvesting the grain for personal gain. They were simply looking for something to eat----and for those who are starving/hungry, it was NEVER the case that mercy/love and meeting needs were suspended on the sabbath. It's why the Lord took such issue with the Pharisees when he chose to heal/fix others on the Sabbath and saw where the religious leaders would take issue...yet not have any problem with the needs of their animals being taken care of. Hospitals/saving lives is not something forbidden on the Sabbath--just as it was with David.

Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. When David came for bread, the loaves given to him were the old loaves that were eaten by the priest--and the old loaves given to David were just replaced with new/fresh ones. Thus, there was no LACK of bread in the house for the priests...and although the priests were the only ones allowed to eat this bread, God did not punish David because his need for food was more important than the priestly or ceremonial regulations. Jesus was saying, "If you condemn me, you must also condemn DAVID," ..something the religious leaders could never do without causing a great uproar among the people. Jesus was never condoning disobediance to God's laws for its own sake--but rather, he was calling for discernment and compassion in enforcing those laws.

He made clear that any interpretation of keeping Shabbat which resulted in life being neglected was not truly a representation of the heart of it. ( Matthew 12:11-13 /, Mark 3:3-5 / Mark 3 , Luke 6:8-10 / Luke 14:1-3 , Luke 13:10-17, etc ). He actually got livid with many when it came to saying that survival itself was not important on the Sabbath--with others literally in need of physical help and yet getting nothing...or being condemned for seeking it out when in dire situations.

As the Word states:

Matthew 12 /Matthew 12:7

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” 11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
Mark 2:22-24

As seen in Matthew 12:1-6 and Mark 2:22-24, Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath by eating grain from the fields..and he then brought up the situation of David. Concerning David’s situation, Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). 1 Samuel 21:5 recounts how King David and the priest Achimelekh violated this mitzvah of the WRITTEN Torah---which the P'rushim would accept as more authoritative than a rule in the Oral Torah. Jesus made clear that to do good/save life is God’s greater law (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5, Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 13:10-17, Luke 14:1-6, etc). As both Paul and Jesus have often noted, the Lord is our Sabbath--and in Christ, the interpretation of the Sabbath is not so much about the Day as it is the INTENT.

Jesus mercifully argued that:

His disciples and David's disregard of the law was justified because His and David's men were hungry

That common sense prevailed over the law and dictated to save the life of a sheep that fell into a ditch on the Sabbath, or to lead them to water when they thirsted

He truthfully argued that the healing of an afflicted human being better than a sheep was more important than a blind obedience to the law about a holy day.

According to the law, Jesus disciples should have been stoned to death, for plucking and rubbing corn on the Sabbath, yet the Lord did not condemn them, but even defended them against the enforcement of the law by the "righteousness police"--the Pharisees. Not just that, but Jesus seemed to purposely provoke these worshippers of the law, by healing people on the Sabbath almost habitually, flouting their rules left and right! Why did He and His disciples do such things? The key scripture in the above passage is:

"But if you had known what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless."

The text explictly says that Yeshua noted He was guitless alongside his Disciples, just as David was in eating the showbread/having the greater law of Love upheld. But something else to consider....If Jesus broke the Sabbath, does that really present a problem for the one whom is expressly said to be the “Lord of the Sabbath” in a context where the account King David’s men participating in actions that they were not suppose to (1 Sam 21:2–7) is present? It is certainly significant that Jesus appeals to King David when confronted by the Pharisees, the one whom he is the son of but also Lord of. (Ps 110:1; Matt 22:45; Rom 1:3-4) From his appeal to King David, it appears Jesus is making a Messianic claim such that results in his being “the Lord of the Sabbath.” As such, there’s really no problem at all in believing Jesus broke the Sabbath as John explicitly tells us he did in John 5:18.

As one source said best in the article entitled The Great Sabbath Controversy (Luke 6:1-11) | Bible.org - Worlds ...:

If David could break the law (prohibiting any but the priests from eating the sacred bread) because of who he was, Jesus could also break the law, for He is even greater than David. Who you are determines what you can get away with. Luke 4:31-37) until after Jesus rejection by the Pharisees.

For some good reviews, one can go here:

All of this is noted to keep in mind the reality of how progressive revelation/God's heart of Mercy is what was to be center-focus when it came to how the Torah was interpreted - and the Messiah did that frequently (As a priest himself) in showing what it meant to truly be about priestly work. Just as it was more important for the showbread to be used for situations of Mercy to David, it was the same with the two priesthoods going on when difficult circumstances arose and God allowed for it to occur for the sake of ministry to people....just as it was with Yeshua when it came to ministering to others even though it wasn't always the norm to do so on the times he did.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 10, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
I agree with Stephen in Acts 7. Human imaginations vs. Pattern shown to Moses. Fame and glory vs. Humble abode. None of what is found in 1Chronicles 22 describes the Tabernacle according to the pattern shown to Moshe. What is being described is a house made with human hands, out of the imagination of a man, built by the will of a man. [/size]

Pattern shown to Moses was not the pattern that Stephen and the early believers ended up living out - in light of the fact that they did not do the same exact things Moses did and actually went back to how things were BEFORE Moses operated....especially for Jews in the Diaspora where this was more emphasised. Moses was not the standard of how it was always going to be - as indicated with the Tabernacle of David and how that was what was referenced (both in Acts 15 and other places) when it came to what the Lord used him to orchestrate.....the Lord doing things in sequence. And with Stephen addressing them due to not knowing how believers were to become the Temple of the Lord (as Paul noted in I Corinthians 6 and I Corinthians 12/I Corinthians 3 alongside what Yeshua said in John 4 on worshipping in Spirit and in truth), it went over their heads.

The model for worship became more mobile again - and in many respects a reflection of Job 1:5 - "And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about; rather, when the days of the feasting had come round; i.e. whenever one of the birthdays had arrived in due course, and the feasting had taken place. That Job sent and sanctified them." For in the old world, outside the Mosaic Law, the father of the family was the priest, to whom alone it belonged to bless, purify, and offer sacrifice....like Jethro the High Priest of Midian in Exodus 2-3 and Exodus 18. Job, after each birthday-feast, sent, it would seem, for his sons, and purified them by the accustomed ablutions, or possibly by some other ceremonial process, regarding it as probable that, in the course of their feasting, they had contracted some defilement....and seeing how it would seem by the next clause that the purification took place at the close of the day of festivity, Job would rise early in the morning, and offer burnt offerings - not odd since burnt offerings were instituted soon after the Fall, as we learn from Genesis 4:4, and were in common use long before the Mosaic Law was given. And in many respects, believers were brought back to that same dynamic with a change in administration of the Spirit of God ....

Jews in the Diaspora had to deal with many things in the absence of a Temple - and thus, with the coming of the Holy Spirit and the rise of the synagogue model, those believers ("forerunners of Pau" as they've been called) were able to be in position as priests of the Lord. In many respects, the believers of the NT era ended up having a patriarch model of ministry - a Bedouin model of travel and carrying God's presence with them which the Diaspora prepared them for - and the concept of transformation was behind why so many had severe issue with the believers in the NT. Many had the mindset of "No!!! God's throne/temple can ONLY be in Jerusalem" - and yet they avoided where the Lord already noted the reality of His Throne being ALL of creation since all of creation couldn't handle him

Originally Posted by sevengreenbeans
Does G-d sit on two thrones? Does He have two footstools? Can we serve two masters?

As said before, with Torah giving previews, having TWO High priests is no different than seeing the work of the Holy Spirit and Yeshua together - both sanctifying us (Titus ) and helping us in our struggles for perfection. It's already heavy enough to consider The Holy Spirit and Prayer - seeing that it's already the case that both the Holy Spirit/Ruach Ha Kodesh and Yeshua intercede for us in priestly manner (just as Jesus worked in the Power of the Holy Spirit when on Earth)- both accomplishing the work of standing in the gap for us to be renewed/redeemed.....some noting that Jesus helps our prayers in Heaven and the Holy Spirit helps our prayers on earth (one being in the Temple in the Heavenlies, the other being in the Temple of our Bodies/Spirits).....some of this similar to the early Judaic concept of "The Two Powers in Heaven"

Romans 8:27
...We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Romans 8:34
Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Titus 2:13-15
11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Titus 3:4-6
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Even in the personal aspect of thrones, God could dwell in two places at once.

Isaiah 57:14-16
For this is what the high and exalted One says—
he who lives forever, whose name is holy:
“I live in a high and holy place,
but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit,
to revive the spirit of the lowly

Outside of that, there's also the aspect of two thrones from the perspective of the THRONE OF GRACE and the THRONE OF MERCY:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of
need. Heb. 4:16.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory. Matt. 25:31.

And others:

Revelation 3: 21 (NKJV): “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.”-

In the event I'm not conveying it right....as another noted best (for brief excerpt):

Revelation 3:21:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne."

As our pioneers did, we will note that there are clearly presented two thrones, the Father's and the Son's. There are also two enthronements at two different times, one described as past and one described as future. Past: I am set down with My Father on His throne. Future: You will sit down with Me on My throne.
With these words of Jesus as an introduction, we will "begin at the beginning" by turning to Psalm 110, where we read an invitation from God the Father to God the Son:

"The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit Thou at My right hand....'"

Hundreds of years later on the great day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter was to apply these words to the risen Christ. (See Acts 2:34.) He obviously understood "the Lord" to be God the Father and "my Lord" to be God the Son, Jesus Christ. But before leaving Psalm 110, we will make two more observations.
The invitation from God the Father to God the Son has a time frame.

"....Sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."

The invitation from God the Father to God the Son has a purpose.

"Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Remembering that Melchizedek, unlike Aaron and his sons, was both a king and a priest, we now have the complete picture before us. God the Father is represented in David's prophecy as inviting God the Son to sit down with Him on His (the Father's) throne as a King and a Priest for a stated period of time, which will end when the Father finally and ultimately disposes of the enemies of the Son.
As sang David, so sang Zechariah in his beautiful prophecy of the Messiah:

"And speak unto him, saying, thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, 'Behold the Man whose name is the BRANCH; and He shall grow up out of His place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: "Even He shall build the temple of the LORD; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between Them both.'" Zechariah 6:12, 13

Here we see the Priest on the throne, the King-Priest. As various of our pioneers pointed out, if this were not the Father's throne, there could hardly be a "counsel of peace between Them both." We cannot picture the Son counseling with Himself, but rather with the Father.
We turn, now, with our pioneers, to the New Testament to hear the testimony of the various witnesses.

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Mark 16:19 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, "Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make They foes Thy footstool."'" Acts 2:33-35

Note that Peter is here quoting Psalm 110 and applying it to Christ. Note also that the expression "by the right hand of God exalted" could with equal validity be translated "to the right hand of God exalted," since the Greek locative, instrumental, and dative cases are spelled alike. Peter testifies again in Acts 5:31:

"Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

Again, we observe that the words "with His right hand" could with equal validity be translated "to His right hand." Now we hear the testimony of Stephen:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.'" Acts 7:55, 56

Gxg (G²) · Nov 10, 2013

HannibalFlavius said:
There is so much to study with every little thing.

Very true

Lulav · Nov 10, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
Anointed priest = High Priest

Eleazar and Ithamar and their sons served as priests. When Aaron died, Eleazar received Aaron's garments and was consecrated (anointed) as High Priest. Exodus 29. A consecration takes place over a seven day period. The office of the High Priest was passed father to son. Ithamar, Ithamar's sons, and Eleazar's sons served as priests to the High Priest Eleazar. As long as there were living descendants of Eleazar to fill the office of High Priest, the descendants of Ithamar remained as priests. The descendants of Ithamar would only become eligible for High Priest if Eleazar's male lineage died out. Having two High Priests at the same time in two different locations goes against the example given to us in the Torah. Does G-d sit on two thrones? Does He have two footstools? Can we serve two masters? If the pilgrimage is too far, we are not told to pick a place closer to us. G-d is not limited by physical boundaries. Humans are, however, limited by the physical boundaries instituted by G-d. This is not about Him speaking or not speaking to people, this is about His Place. He left His place to bring Israel out of Egypt. He remained with them until He returned to His Place. This place on earth corresponds to His Place in the heavenlies. The patriarchs built and rebuilt altars in this place. Covenant renewals.
Challenge: study the Torah portions beginning in Genesis 1 with good maps of Israel and surrounding areas, a notebook for keeping detailed notes, visit public, private, and online libraries, make use of archaeological and historical information. The place which will be revealed time and time again is not the place you might expect it to be.
King Solomon lacked the authority to "fire" a priest. A High Priest is High Priest through birthright, not by job application. Unless he is a counterfeit, perhaps.
The showbread is holy, because it has been set before the L-RD. It can therefore only be eaten by priests. Exodus 29. I believe Yeshua was making a contrast. Lawful vs. Unlawful. Fences instituted by man vs. fences instituted by G-d. The corners of a field were to be left for the poor (needy or hungry) and the travelers. Leviticus 23:22. Another example is what is found about the Shemittah in Leviticus 25:6. Yeshua and his companions were eating on the Sabbath. David and his companions were eating of the holy, when they could have eaten from the corners of a field, instead. Red flag. Leviticus 22 (especially 22:10). Abiathar was High Priest, but Ahimelech was taking the showbread from the table. This job was to be carried out by the High Priest. (Side note: the ephod is only to be worn by the High Priest. David put on an ephod, as well. Red flag.) 1Chronicles 22:1 "David said". The text doesn't say "YHWH said". I agree with Stephen in Acts 7. Human imaginations vs. Pattern shown to Moses. Fame and glory vs. Humble abode. None of what is found in 1Chronicles 22 describes the Tabernacle according to the pattern shown to Moshe. What is being described is a house made with human hands, out of the imagination of a man, built by the will of a man.

Hi 7GB's. you've put a lot out there, kinda hard to read though with no breaks.

But I read through it and have some questions for you.

Anointing is consecrating to the L-RD , right?

And he poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him, to consecrate him

Number 3 tells us how the priesthood was arranged. It seems that the Levites were given to Aaron and his sons to help him in the service of the Tabernacle, by their families in perpetuity.

1 Now these are the records of Aaron and Moses when the Lord spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai. 2 And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab, the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests, whom he consecrated to minister as priests. 4 Nadab and Abihu had died before the Lord when they offered profane fire before the Lord in the Wilderness of Sinai; and they had no children. So Eleazar and Ithamar ministered as priests in the presence of Aaron their father. 5 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 6 "Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him. 7 And they shall attend to his needs and the needs of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of meeting, to do the work of the tabernacle. 8 Also they shall attend to all the furnishings of the tabernacle of meeting, and to the needs of the children of Israel, to do the work of the tabernacle. 9 And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are given entirely to him from among the children of Israel. 10 So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their priesthood; but the outsider who comes near shall be put to death." 11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 12 "Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine, 13 because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the Lord." 14 Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, saying: 15 "Number the children of Levi by their fathers' houses, by their families; you shall number every male from a month old and above." 16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded. 17 These were the sons of Levi by their names: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 18 And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families: Libni and Shimei. 19 And the sons of Kohath by their families: Amram, Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. 20 And the sons of Merari by their families: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by their fathers' houses. 21 From Gershon came the family of the Libnites and the family of the Shimites; these were the families of the Gershonites. 22 Those who were numbered, according to the number of all the males from a month old and above--of those who were numbered there were seven thousand five hundred. 23 The families of the Gershonites were to camp behind the tabernacle westward. 24 And the leader of the fathers' house of the Gershonites was Eliasaph the son of Lael. 25 The duties of the children of Gershon in the tabernacle of meeting included the tabernacle, the tent with its covering, the screen for the door of the tabernacle of meeting, 26 the screen for the door of the court, the hangings of the court which are around the tabernacle and the altar, and their cords, according to all the work relating to them. 27 From Kohath came the family of the Amramites, the family of the Izharites, the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites; these were the families of the Kohathites. 28 According to the number of all the males, from a month old and above, there were eight thousand six hundred keeping charge of the sanctuary. 29 The families of the children of Kohath were to camp on the south side of the tabernacle. 30 And the leader of the fathers' house of the families of the Kohathites was Elizaphan the son of Uzziel. 31 Their duty included the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the utensils of the sanctuary with which they ministered, the screen, and all the work relating to them. 32 And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was to be chief over the leaders of the Levites, with oversight of those who kept charge of the sanctuary. 33 From Merari came the family of the Mahlites and the family of the Mushites; these were the families of Merari. 34 And those who were numbered, according to the number of all the males from a month old and above, were six thousand two hundred. 35 The leader of the fathers' house of the families of Merari was Zuriel the son of Abihail. These were to camp on the north side of the tabernacle. 36 And the appointed duty of the children of Merari included the boards of the tabernacle, its bars, its pillars, its sockets, its utensils, all the work relating to them, 37 and the pillars of the court all around, with their sockets, their pegs, and their cords. 38 Moreover those who were to camp before the tabernacle on the east, before the tabernacle of meeting, were Moses, Aaron, and his sons, keeping charge of the sanctuary, to meet the needs of the children of Israel; but the outsider who came near was to be put to death. 39 All who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the Lord, by their families, all the males from a month old and above, were twenty-two thousand. 40 Then the Lord said to Moses: "Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and above, and take the number of their names. 41 And you shall take the Levites for Me--I am the Lord--instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel." 42 So Moses numbered all the firstborn among the children of Israel, as the Lord commanded him. 43 And all the firstborn males, according to the number of names from a month old and above, of those who were numbered of them, were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three. 44 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 45 "Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock. The Levites shall be Mine: I am the Lord. 46 And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, who are more than the number of the Levites, 47 you shall take five shekels for each one individually; you shall take them in the currency of the shekel of the sanctuary, the shekel of twenty gerahs. 48 And you shall give the money, with which the excess number of them is redeemed, to Aaron and his sons." 49 So Moses took the redemption money from those who were over and above those who were redeemed by the Levites. 50 From the firstborn of the children of Israel he took the money, one thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 51 And Moses gave their redemption money to Aaron and his sons, according to the word of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Ok, now that that is dealt with I have a question about this

David and his companions were eating of the holy, when they could have eaten from the corners of a field, instead. Red flag.

Were they not eating the showbread because of where they were hiding out and they couldn't either go out and be seen or perhaps it wasn't the time of year to glean from the fields?

Yeshua addressed this and said he did not sin, so are you intimating that the shewbread he ate was not truly the shewbread of G-d?

And this seems to say to me you are calling David unholy or going against the Torah which sounds really unreasonable especially since he wrote so many songs extolling the virtues of Torah day and night.

(Side note: the ephod is only to be worn by the High Priest. David put on an ephod, as well. Red flag.)

The text says:

14 And David danced before the L-RD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

This was not the garment of the HIGH Priest which was made with blue, crimson, purple and gold woven throughout.

It specifies it was a linen vest worn by all priests, those in service to HaShem and also pagan priests wore these also it seems (Judges)

Michal, Saul's daughter despised what Daivd had done, rejocing before the L-RD making sacrifices to him and also blessing the people with meat and bread and wine. Thereafter the L-RD made her barren, she would not bear any children to David.

So I Don't see a 'red flag' here either. Can you explain what you meant by that in these two 'red flag' cases?

Thanks!

visionary · Nov 10, 2013

1 Sam 21:7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

Yeshua thought what happened that day was of great religious significance, and if we understand it, then a lot of things will make sense.

Matthew 12:1-8 At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. If you knew what this meant, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath."

In doing this, he is placing both himself and King David on the same level as the priests in the temple, saying that as the priests are innocent by virtue of their priesthood, so too is David and himself and his disciples. He then takes it a step further, stating that he is in fact greater than, and master of the Sabbath.

Logic says the point is that Yeshua says that the priests are innocent, and if King David and Jesus and his disciples are also innocent, they must be priests as well.

sevengreenbeans · Nov 11, 2013

[Gxg (G²)]
Ithamar's family eventually lost the high priesthood

The High Priesthood was passed through the lineage of Eleazar first, father to son, while the lineage of Ithamar continued to serve the lineage of Eleazar. And it was a matter of choice. The choice of G-d Himself. He made covenant with Phinehas, son of Eleazar. Each father did not only have one son, but only one son was to hold the office of High Priest, and it was to follow a specific line. Of course the descendants of Ithamar kept track of their lineage, as well, because if Eleazar's line was to die out, or if one in the lineage was childless, or only had daughters, then the office of the High Priest would be (again by choice of G-d, as such things - life and death - are in the hands of G-d) passed to the eligible descendant of Ithamar. I believe the priest Eli to have been just that - a priest - who usurped the role of High Priest, similar to Korach's plan. The house of Eli was eventually cut off from the family of Ithamar. Regardless of belief of whether or not Eli was a valid High Priest... the lineage of Eli was no longer eligible to stand in the line of Ithamar as priests or High Priest. There were many others in the line of Ithamar who remained faithful to the commandments of YHWH.

1Samuel 3:11 And the L-RD said to Samuel: 'Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that hears it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from the beginning even unto the end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever, for the iniquity, in that he knew that his sons did bring a curse upon themselves, and he rebuked them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever.'
If the sin of Eli's house shall not be expiated (made obsolete) with sacrifice nor offering - for ever - then this defines the ineligibility as High Priest, since this is one of the duties of the High Priest at Yom Kippur, to make atonement for his own sin as well as the sins of the people. The house of Eli could not do this.

There's nothing within the Torah saying that having two high priests is illegal, seven - just as there's nothing saying that David setting up the Tabernacle as he did while appointed/rearranging Levites was against God's design since it was not fully in line with the Mosaic custom. There's the aspect of Progressive Revelation - and Eleazar being chosen does not mean only his descendants are allowed to be High Priest since there were other sons of Aaron. It was simply a matter of choice at the time.

Not fully in line with the customs of Moses, or not in line with the commandments of YHWH?

And if the scriptures are to be the standard, there's no escaping where the Lord allowed/condoned having TWO High Places at the same time. Our not agreeing with that does not change where it was noted within His scripture and using both priests to do ministry in the time of David.

As said before, the tabernacle model was not the model for all time since it evolved into the Temple model - with that changing later as it concerns what occurred with the saints......and the same with sacrifices/a host of other aspects.....and in many respects, this is no different than the concept of David's Tent (noted in Amos) being the model for the New Covenant according to Acts 15 rather than what happened in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness (as shared in the thread entitled .. The Sukkah of David and the Davidic Covenant (#78 )

This sounds like the many arguments that the "Old" Covenant has been replaced by the "New" Covenant.

...or Joshua himself (although NOT a Levite) actually present in the Tabernacle (as shared before in #30)

In #30, you state that Joshua may not have been in the Tabernacle proper (mishkan), but rather the Tent (ohel). Anyhow, Joshua, an Ephraimite, was a servant of Moses, to be included in Moses' household, and sat in the seat of Moses after the death of Moses.

- or with ministry in where the Spirit dwelled varying from the wilderness era (more shared in #4).

Traveling with the people to return them to the proper place of worship, the place they were to pilgrimage to appear before Him 3 times a year.

..or with Elijah fed by unclean ravens (#89 )

Elijah may have been fed by Arabs. (The word used there makes it feasible.)

or Hosea commanded to marry an unclean prostitute.

All women are unclean at many times in the course of a lifetime, prostitute or not. I don't see this as an issue. Mikveh. If it is adultery, it is the husband who brings the wife before the High Priest for sotah. "Unclean" and "prostitute" are two different issues, in and of themselves, dealt with in different ways.

To ask whether God sits on two thrones (assuming he can only be in one) is akin to asking whether or not God can be ALL Places at once or if He's limited - and to assume that suggesting God contains/rules over ALL of creation is a matter of serving "two masters" is going counter to what the scriptures note with God's dominion being present everywhere - God is God..

I will answer this with something my husband and I discussed on the matter. My husband said it is one thing built upon another, a foundation for teaching people the way things should be. The place where the children of Israel were to pilgrimage to for the appointed times to appear before YHWH is like the bride appearing before her husband. It is a picture of unity. What picture, so to speak, would be illustrated if a group appeared over here and another over there? It would be a picture of adultery. In a marriage, a husband and wife meet together in one place, if there are two beds she's meeting in, there's a problem. There will be a separation.

Exodus 15:13 You in Your love have led the people that You have redeemed; You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy habitation.

Exodus 15:17 You bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place, O L-RD, which You have made for You to dwell in, the sanctuary, O L-rd, which Your hands have established.
18 The L-RD shall reign for ever and ever.

(Hint: not Jerusalem) According to the "Old" Covenant, this place was in the region of Shechem, where the 12 stones were brought up out of the Jordan.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 11, 2013

sevengreenbeans said:
The High Priesthood was passed through the lineage of Eleazar first, father to son, while the lineage of Ithamar continued to serve the lineage of Eleazar. And it was a matter of choice. The choice of G-d Himself.

God choosing Eleazar was never opposite of the fact that God never said Ithamar's line (also sons of Aaron) were not going to qualify for the position/be used in it at one point - again, we cannot argue more from scripture than what's present...otherwise, it's adding to the text - and the early believers understood the dynamic of dual priesthood in the time of David due to how what was not explicitly mentioned was not a matter of expressely being forbidden - in other words, God not mentioning to Moses the need for Two Priests did not mean there was never going to be a need for that or room made to accommodate it in the time it was needed. And this really isn't a new concept.

He made covenant with Phinehas, son of Eleazar. Each father did not only have one son, but only one son was to hold the office of High Priest, and it was to follow a specific line. Of course the descendants of Ithamar kept track of their lineage, as well, because if Eleazar's line was to die out, or if one in the lineage was childless, or only had daughters, then the office of the High Priest would be (again by choice of G-d, as such things - life and death - are in the hands of G-d) passed to the eligible descendant of Ithamar. I believe the priest Eli to have been just that - a priest - who usurped the role of High Priest, similar to Korach's plan. The house of Eli was eventually cut off from the family of Ithamar. Regardless of belief of whether or not Eli was a valid High Priest... the lineage of Eli was no longer eligible to stand in the line of Ithamar as priests or High Priest. There were many others in the line of Ithamar who remained faithful to the commandments of YHWH.

..If the sin of Eli's house shall not be expiated (made obsolete) with sacrifice nor offering - for ever - then this defines the ineligibility as High Priest, since this is one of the duties of the High Priest at Yom Kippur, to make atonement for his own sin as well as the sins of the people. The house of Eli could not do this.

There's again nothing saying at any point that only one son of Aaron was meant to hold the role of High Priest for all time - and to argue otherwise is reading past what the text says since there's nothing saying at any point that Ithamar's line was to keep track of lineage in the event that Eleazar died out as if that was the only time qualification for High Priesthood occurred. David's time and what the Lord did through him was a clear indication of Ithamar's line understanding the concept of both sons of Aaron being qualified for Priesthood - the Lord could switch it at any time, regardless, as he did with kings and others frequently. Eli was never shown to be a High Priest who ursurped anything since he was placed into the position by the Lord (even though he was a horrible father who allowed his sons to get out of control - the SOLE reason why the Lord took him out according to I Samuel 2-4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rLxDF8oRc

Even using Korah as an comparision to Eli, the reality of that situation is that Korrah's line was actually redeemed in time and not all of his sons fell into the things he did - with those sons being present in David's Tabernacle and also the line where Obed-Edom came from later on. Although I understand the point you were trying to make with how others can often fall into serious error trying to mimic all aspects of another when they were not commanded (or given room) to do so, there are many times people use anything tied with Korah to make that point....and I must say that seeing the history of Korrah is quite amazing when seeing what actually occurred with all connected with him.

For more information, one can consider here as well as the following historical review from one of the finest historians I've seen to date:

The Sons of Korah | Edge Induced Cohesion

And on that issue, if going by the argument "Well, God said once and for all Eli would not be able to be redeemed!!!", it is already the case that scripture already shows where the Lord declared one thing as if it couldn't be changed - and yet because of the actions of others, the line was redeemed. We see this plainly with how Moses blessed many of the tribes which Jacob cursed - and we see this also in how God spoke/prophesied destruction over Ninevah.....yet when they repented, the Lord relented/changed his mind. Many other examples besides this can be brought up - and thus, one can only go so far with the ideology of God never altering. Of course, there were other sons of Ithamar (besides Eli) who could easily qualify as High Priests due to their faithfulness - and ultimately, after Eli passed, the line of Ithamar was still present in the time of David when it came to the Two High priests helping out David (who was both a King and a Priest as well as a Prophet - in the same way Christ was) and David commissioning them as the Lord commissions his people via the Holy Spirit to be priests of the Lord.

When it was reported to King David that the LORD had blessed the family of Obed-edom and all that belonged to him, David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the City of David amid festivities. As soon as the bearers of the ark of the LORD had advanced six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. Then David, girt with a linen apron, came dancing before the LORD with abandon, (2 Samuel 6:12-14)

After David was annointed and made king, he brought back the Ark of the Covenant and it is clear that he sacrificed, something which subsequent to Mt. Sinai, only a priest would have done.

When David had finished offering up the holocausts and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD, (1 Chronicles 16:2)

The more I see David's priestly actions as a uniting of the king/priest role that was seperated at Mt. Sinai, or a prefigurement of the reuniting of that role in the common priesthood of Christ under the New Covenant.

Not fully in line with the customs of Moses, or not in line with the commandments of YHWH?

God's commandments progress from age to age - as seen in how what was commanded of the Patriarchs wasn't the same as what occurred in the time of Moses - and what happened in the time of the Prophets differed in many respects from what Moses experienced. Thus, to argue on things not being in line with the Commandments of YHWH because they are different than what God commanded Moses is not dealing with what the Lord also commanded afterward - Him STILL being the boss and his commands/actions needing to be followed at all times......in the same way one follows their boss on the job and doesn't say "But Boss, you said last semester the QUOTA was this much - you don't have the right this season to change it or make new adjustments" since our role is employees to obey.

This sounds like the many arguments that the "Old" Covenant has been replaced by the "New" Covenant.

Not really accurate - seeing that discussing where the NT fulfills the OT (both of them being interconnected - the New being the OT revealed and the OT being the NT Concealed) .....and there's no way of arguing past the reality of where there were differing commands given in each age and standards changed at certain points.

In #30, you state that Joshua may not have been in the Tabernacle proper (mishkan), but rather the Tent (ohel). Anyhow, Joshua, an Ephraimite, was a servant of Moses, to be included in Moses' household, and sat in the seat of Moses after the death of Moses.

Joshua may not have been in the Tabernacle proper - but there's also plenty of evidence showing where it was very much a matter of being there - and on the issue, being a servant of Moses doesn't change the fact that he wasn't of the Levitical line - even though he had many things allowed for him that one would think were a role only for the Levites. Not only was Moses different from his brother, but he also was different from his successor. For we know from previous texts that Joshua was a military man. Numbers 27:18, however, gives us fresh information telling us why God chose Joshua to succeed Moses; he is an ish asher ruach bo. Both NJPS and the translation found in The Torah: A Modern Commentary, revised edition, show this as an“inspired man.” The New Revised Standard Version and the New King James Version translate the phrase as “a man in whom is the spirit.” Some commentators link the ruach of Joshua to the ruach of God in verse 16, as Moses spoke to the Eternal saying, “Let the Eternal One, Source of the breath [spirit] of all flesh, appoint someone over the community...” If the Eternal is “the God of the spirits of all flesh,” then Joshua has been divinely ordained for leadership.

Moreover, Numbers 27:20 states that Moses gave some of his hod, his “authority” or “vitality,” to Joshua. Here again, we see a separation between Moses and his successor...for unlike Aaron, Moses does not hand over all the vestments of his office. Instead, Moses imparts some of his hod. In fact, Sifre B’midbar 141 states that Moses did not diminish his wisdom when bestowing his hod upon Joshua. Ultimately, it'd be best to liken this to a torch and a candle, “...just as a torch loses none of its intensity if a candle is lighted therefrom, so little was Moses’ wisdom diminished by the wisdom he gave to Joshua.” And this distinction will be further emphasized by the role Eleazar plays in Joshua’s succession. For we know that at various times Moses acted as prophet, priest, judge, and military leader for the Israelites....but Joshua was not all these things and in fact he shares his duties with Eleazar. When Moses lays hands on Joshua and presents him to Eleazar, the future dual leadership is established (Numbers 27:19–21). While it is clear that Joshua will be the military leader and Eleazer the priestly leader, the division of the other two offices is not as easy to distinguish - for in particular, it's difficult to determine the office of prophet. We do learn in Numbers 27:21 that Joshua will not consult with God like Moses did - but instead, Eleazar will consult God on Joshua’s behalf through the Urim (and presumably also the Thummim) - as the prophet was the go-between between God and humans...and trom this passage it appears that Eleazar will fulfill the prophetic role. However, in Deuteronomy 34:9, we read, “Now Joshua son of Nun, was filed with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands upon him"...suggesting that perhaps Joshua inherited the prophetic role

Traveling with the people to return them to the proper place of worship, the place they were to pilgrimage to appear before Him 3 times a year.

And with pilgrimage, they often went to other places besides that - with others not able to make it still being used/blessed of the Lord regardless.

Elijah may have been fed by Arabs. (The word used there makes it feasible.)

Of course - and you already know (as I've told you before) that it's more than possible for Elijah to have dealt with Arabs deemed "ravens" (due to their dark skin - noted in #19 #45 ).....just as controversial when it comes to seeing how Israel viewed Gentiles and what happened later when Elijah was asked to live with a woman from the same territory Queen Jezebel was from (as noted in #67 / #126 ).

Gxg (G²) · Nov 11, 2013

Originally Posted by sevengreenbeans ( All women are unclean at many times in the course of a lifetime, prostitute or not. I don't see this as an issue. Mikveh. If it is adultery, it is the husband who brings the wife before the High Priest for sotah. "Unclean" and "prostitute" are two different issues, in and of themselves, dealt with in different ways.

One really cannot minimize the issue of what Hosea was asked to do when it comes to seeing what the Lord said fully on the issue of prostitution. What God did through Gomer is indeed wild.....one of the more troubling passages in scripture....and to be honest, I probably would have flat out said "NO!!!" if God asked me to marry a prostitute who was unfaithful.

Hosea 1
1 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash[a] king of Israel:

Hoseas Wife and Children

2 When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD. 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

4 Then the LORD said to Hosea, Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. 5 In that day I will break Israels bow in the Valley of Jezreel.

6 Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, Call her Lo-Ruhamah (which means not loved), for I will no longer show love to Israel, that I should at all forgive them. 7 Yet I will show love to Judah; and I will save themnot by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but I, the LORD their God, will save them.

8 After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. 9 Then the LORD said, Call him Lo-Ammi (which means not my people), for you are not my people, and I am not your God.

10 Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, they will be called children of the living God. 11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will come together; they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.[c]

Granted, as much as some find it difficult for God to make such a request of Hosea, many think that the story is historical and give one of these explanations:

(1) According to God's Law, a priest could not marry a prostitute or a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:7)...and some feel Hosea was not a priest.

(2) It is possible that Gomer was not an adulterous woman when Hosea married her, and that God was letting Hosea know that Gomer would later turn to adultery/prostitution

The latter explanation does not seem to be one that really renconciles fully. Gods command to Hosea, Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom ... (1:2), would indicate that she was previously a prostitute. And on the issue of avoiding marriages with others who support Adultery and being told to STAY with them, it seems counter to what God often said on sexual immorality being what we need to avoid.....and, for that matter, adultery being something one should divorce on.

During the time of Hosea, it seems that some people believed Hosea was a priest as seen in Hosea 4:4-13, where Hosea says no priest should accuse him because God has a special case against the priest--and it could be said that Hosea's life of marrying a prostitute was symbolic of what the priests themselves were doing. Hosea was also believed to be an Ephraimite himself and of the very people God called Him to speak against. What's more than clear is that truly Hosea was a prophet or a messenger chosen by God. ...and the Prophets were commanded many times to be pure.

In any case, we do know that mere association with a prostitute, let alone marriage, would have alienated him from society. Not only was Hosea's reputation in jeopardy, but his happiness as a husband and father. He entered this marriage knowing that Gomer would betray him, and knowing that he would not have a happy marriage.

It'd be like one asking their son to go and marry a inappropriate content Star--despite all that the Word says/warns of clearly when it comes to sexual immorality and the issue of being unclean (Proverbs 5, Proverbs 620-35, Proverbs 7, I Kings 11, etc)--and seeing then eager to obey their parent regardless. Hosea knew ahead of time that his wife would be unfaithful and tha their married life would become a living object lesson to the adulterous northern kingdom.

Other things that stand out is that Matthew 2:13 cites Hosea's prophecy in Hosea 11:1 that God would call His Son out of Egypt as foretelling the flight into Egypt and return to Israel of Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus Christ. Who knows if there's some kind of significance there with that as it concerns the issue of illustrating a point with spiritual adultery

For more on the background of Hosea, according to Hosea 1:1, Hosea was a prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel (II Kings 13:13)....and he served from 753 to 715 B.C. Under the reign of Jeroboam II, the northern kingdom had prospered materially but had decayed spiritually.

The people were greedy and had adopted the moral behavior and idolatrous religion of the surrounding Canaanites......and God was concerned with using Hosea to show how the northern kingdom had been unfaithful to God, their "husband" and provider and had married themselves to Baal and the gods of Canaan. He warned them that unless they repente of their sins and turned back to God, they were headed for destruction. ...just as God promised (Deuteronomy 27:28, Deuteronomy 31:16).

Hoseas's marriage to an unfaithful woman would illustrate God's relationship to the unfaithful nation of Israel (Hosea 3:1-5). Hosea didn't argue with God about this..for he might have argued, like Ezekiel, about his adherence to the Law and to external cleanliness. He may've even tried to remind God that the Law expressly forbade priests to have anything to do with prostitutes. But he does not. Hosea immediately went out and married Gomer and took in her "children of whoredom."

When the Lord commanded Hosea to marry an unclean prostitute so He could illustrate a point....as seen in Hosea 1-2. ..it was truly a risky situation. Of course, God later denounced it and used the situation to show how he no longer loved his people. Hosea wrote, "Then the iniquity of Ephraim was uncovered, and the wickedness of Samaria. For they have committed fraud" (Hosea 7:1), "Your calf is rejected, O Samaria! My anger is aroused against them--How long until they attain to innocence? For from Israel is even this: A workman made it, and it is not God; But the calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces" (Hosea 8:5-6), and "Samaria is held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child ripped open" (Hosea 13:16).

When the children of Israel worshiped the golden calf in Exodus, they claimed they were actually worshiping the true God (Exodus 32:8)--and God was not pleased with that either (vs. 9). Its why what Jeroboam did in I Kings 12-14 in introuducing the golden calf worship was so detrimental...

But again, despite all of that, its puzzling for many to see that God would command someone to do something so drastic as marrying a prostitute/having children by her to make a point...

It truly is a controversial issue---and an example of where it seemed God did not necessarily go alongside what was written, as it concerns sexual immorality and prostitution not being something His people should have gotten involved in ( Genesis 38:23-25 , Leviticus 19:28-30, Leviticus 21:7, Leviticus 21:13-15, Jeremiah 3:1-3, Ezekiel 16:25-27, Deuteronomy 23:17-19 , 1 Kings 14:23-25, etc ).

Some have argued that God is definitely against prostitution, but there is nothing wrong about marrying a prostitute, unless one was a Levite Priest (Lev 21). Of course, During the time of Hosea, it seems that some people believed Hosea was a priest as seen in Hosea 4:4-13, where Hosea says no priest should accuse him because God has a special case against the priest--and it could be said that Hosea's life of marrying a prostitute was symbolic of what the priests themselves were doing. Hosea was also believed to be an Ephraimite himself and of the very people God called Him to speak against. What's more than clear is that truly Hosea was a prophet or a messenger chosen by God. ...and the Prophets were commanded many times to be pure.

Nonetheless, there would still be the issue of both uncleanliness/sexual immorality, as God already made clear his people were to flee/avoid it in all forms. Again, to marry a prostitute would be akin to one marrying a inappropriate content star...or one who did inappropriate content star videos/photos in your house as a believer......and from what I've read, the tradition is that Hosea was a priest.

There's nothing in the text to exclude the idea/concept, especially when seeing the relevance of how the priest were marrying into prostitution of their own souls and the prostituting the people--with the concept of a priest marrying a prostitute being a means of God showing in reverse how it'd look if a Holy Priest was faithful to marry a prostitute for differing reasons than did others....

Its akin to God saying, "If you--my priests----wish to marry prostitutes/immorality, fine..I'll use a priest to marry one as well but make clear through him how I feel about your prostitution since you seem to understand on THAT level alone."

The Bible doesn't say how the Israelite men got involved in sexual immorality, but we do know that sacred prostitution was a common practice amongst Canaanite religions.....and with the Numbers 25 incident, thanks to the suggestion of Balaam (Revelation 2:14), it had drastic consequences (I Corinthians 10:8). To say marrying a prostitute was okay in certain settings is like one saying its against the Law/forbidden to consult witches and mediums or warlocks ( Leviticus 19:30-32 , Leviticus 20:5-7, Leviticus 20:26-27, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Samuel 28:2-4, 2 Kings 21:5-7, 1 Chronicles 10:12-14 , Isaiah 8:18-20 , Jeremiah 27:8-10 , etc )...but its okay to be married to one. If distance was asked in one setting to be avoided, how much more is marriage where you're truly UP CLOSE and personal.

It is sad to see how prostitution was an accepted part of urban society during biblical times (see 1 Kings 22:38, Isa 23:16, Prov 7:12, and Proverbs 9:14)---and cultic prostitution (or prostitution as part of religious practice) was clearly condemned. Deuteronomy and Numbers contain several prohibitions against such prostitution (Deut 23:18 and Num 25:1-3)...with all forms of contact with Prostitutes being banned sharply as seen in how the practice was not completely eradicated in the Temple until the reforms of Josiah (1 Kings 15:12 22:45; 2 Kings 23:7).

One would think logically that there'd be no consideration of sparring any prostitutes married to other believers in the land......seeeing how they were often wiped out.

Though I can understand why there'd be attempt at trying to make categories (i.e. engaging in prostitution vs marrying a prostitute), I really don't see how one can try to do so since it can come off as splitting hairs to a significant degree....and almost attempting to make a seperation on something that's too close to come apart.

One cannot be married to a person who's a Leader in Human Trafficking---and then try to claim that they don't participate in actually hiring the services of exploited women involved in the sex slave trade by saying "Well, I don't support Human Trafing since its just my spouse who I take care of/fund""---it does seem a bit trivial (IMHO) to try saying that there's a big difference between engaging in the action of prostitution (i.e. having sex with one, soliciting prostitutes, directing prostitutes on where to go to get more clients, etc) and marrying a prostitute...as in both, validation of the practice is occurring on some kind of level.

Some of it gets even more interesting when considering how just because one marries a prostitute doesn't mean they're free from the other consequences that can come from engaging in prostitution...be it with venereal diseases, STDS, unwanted preganices, or damaged hearts/souls that are disconnected due to becoming emotionally bonded with so many people and many other issues....ALL of which are direct consequences of those who practice sexual immorality.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 11, 2013

Originally Posted by sevengreenbeans All women are unclean at many times in the course of a lifetime, prostitute or not. I don't see this as an issue. Mikveh. If it is adultery, it is the husband who brings the wife before the High Priest for sotah. "Unclean" and "prostitute" are two different issues, in and of themselves, dealt with in different ways.

Click to expand...

For the amount of women I've heard of who felt defiled when realizing that their husband was "on the down low" (i.e. sleeping with both men/women and then making love to their spouse who wasn't aware of it) and they ended up getting AIDs from the actions of another..ror grieved due to finding out how their husbands were viewing inappropriate contentagraphy/taking those images into the bedroom and projecting them unto their wives..or the amount of men who felt vexed/emotionally damged when realizing how their wife was pregnant by another man and it damaged their ability to trust women, its not small issue. Its akin to what Samson did to his own parents. For His Nazirite vow stated that anything unclean was strictly off limits---including a corpse or dead body (Leviticus 11:24-25)---and yet Samson ate honey from the carcass of a LION he had killed...and then gave some to his parents without telling them where he got it, defiling them in the process/causing sin to arise (Judges 14:6-9).

Can God work through it? Of course - as something else coming to mind is the issue of Judah/Tamar, in light of how often God denounced things such as Prostitution within the Word (as well as Canaanite ways) and yet he somehow managed to include the sons of such a Canaanite (i.e. Tamar) into the Messianic Line...despite how horrible the circumstances were where the children were brought into the world.

Unless one could show that prostitution was something that God winked his eye at in the Law/OT or something he said he was cool with his people being involved in ( Genesis 38:23-25 , Leviticus 19:28-30, Leviticus 21:7, Leviticus 21:13-15, Jeremiah 3:1-3, Ezekiel 16:25-27, Deuteronomy 23:17-19 , 1 Kings 14:23-25, etc ), I'd find it very difficult to assume that what God had Hosea do was not a controversial matter.

To say it was LAWFUL to marry a prostitute simply because Priest were the ones noted to be forbidden from doing so is a bit incomplete, IMHO, as the Priests were to be the standard of purity/holines for the community to follow--and thus, what they did was reflective of what the people were to also be doing when it came to holiness. If it was permissible to marry a prostitute, God should never had had an issue with the people going after the prostitutes/women of other nations (Judges 1-3)---let alone the issue of what occurred in Numbers 31 and Numbers 25 when the Israelites were taking Moabite women who were sexually immoral into the very camp of Israel for both sex/relationships.

But there is precedent in what happened with Hosea when seeing the concept of progressive revelation and how often the Lord did things that were different in one age compared to what occurred in a previous one....and for another example of one of the more controversial examples coming to mind would be things such as what happened with Ezekiel....as seen in Ezekiel 4:14-16/Ezekiel 4. With Ezekiel, Ezekiel 4:14-16 Ezekiel 4, it is interesting to see that Ezekiel raises no objections until he is told to use human excrement/waste (dung) for fuel.

For animal fuel is a common fuel ( 1 Kings 14:9-11 1 Kings 14 )--and yet, God submitted to His request out of mercy..seeing Ezekiel was a priest/would have been careful to keep all these laws. This circumstance of the sign, the baking of his bread with man's dung, was something he humbly asked be dispensed with since it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution, for there was a law that man's dung should be covered with earth, that God might see no unclean thing in their camp, Deuteronomy 23:12-14. Because Ezekiel with a manifest tenderness of conscience made this scruple, God dispensed with him in this matter.

The actions seem to represent an example of God's condescension/graciouness to Ezekiel, though God's authority is incontestable/ all his commands are wise/ good. For God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, Ezekiel 4:15...not because He thought it was bad what He FIRST commanded...but because of MERCY. If God said "No!" to Ezekiel's request, would he have still eaten?

There's simply no way around that if we're to be faithful to the text and what the Early Hebrews understood......and the same goes for the concept of the Two Priesthoods - as it concerns how we cannot make arguments from silence that say "Well, Eleazar was chosen by the Lord to be High Priest - therefore, it must mean that God ALWAYS wanted HIS Line to be High Priest and Ithamar to not be in that position!!" since there's nothing explicitly there saying Ithamar was not to be used in the position of High Priest via his line - and we already have plenty of evidence in scripture where he alongside a descendant of his brother's line were BOTH High Priests in the Tanak - with the Lord speaking through him/ministering through his line in the time of David when things were more complicated than they were in Moses' time......and the Lord made allowance for it for the sake of ministry/illustrating a larger point.

The Law definitely has exceptions to the rule, more specifically, when life is of the highest priority...

Priests

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Remember Yosef

Remember Yosef

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Remember Yosef

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Remember Yosef

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Y'shua is His Name

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Remember Yosef

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads