Priests

sevengreenbeans said:

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.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, IMHO, it seems the argument you are giving is akin appeal to ridicule. For the example of scripture already shows where the Lord spoke at TWO different locations through TWO different individuals...and the response given to that isn't about noting where the Lord did speak in two differing places - but instead to say "Well, how odd does that look? "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

Having things noted for where others go (appointed times and pilgrimage) were not limited to one location according to the examples in David's time - and even with them, it was not as if God was limited in illustrations to show what it meant to serve/follow Him since previous examples/instructions pointed to later developments meant to illustrate love for Him in marriage.

Showing disbelief in a claim/thinking it wild doesn't show that it is false or inaccurate.


God never called what happened with the two priesthoods adultery - just as it's not a lack of unity that Yeshua is praying for us/making intercession and yet the Holy Spirit is doing the same - and thus, it'd not matter whether or not you or I think of it as such since that'd be us taking our own sentiments......and going past what the Lord said on the issue/how he operated (in his mind showing a reflection of who HE is in being everywhere/able to help others no matter what when it comes to His Mercy). If we assume He could only be in ONE location, then we end taking his actions of operating simultaneously in TWO or MORE places (as happened often in scripture and as occurs even with the Holy Spirit and Christ BOTH interceding for us while being outside of time) - and making them of no importance because of our leanings.

What God noted in Exodus 15:17 does not change where it was the case that He often noted REPEATEDLY how he'd meet with his people intimately - regardless of location - all of it indicative of intimacy with him
God not only lives in the Heavens but also inside His people, the church. The Greek word here for dwell comes from the word for house, and conveys taking up residence in a place—in this case, the body of the believer. This is very siginificant when thinking consider how incredible this is—the infinite God of the universe has chosen to make His home in your heart. And this is even more amazing when we think about the words of Solomon: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27).

As said before, Stephen also realized this when they accused him on the Temple in Acts 6-7 and he noted the same exact thing...

But as it happens the word for "dwell" is very rare in the OT, used only five time -- twice in the passages noted above, and elsewhere:
This is also in connection with seeing the massiveness of who the Lord is in general - when it comes to him being beyond creation itself in terms of dwelling. After Jesus was taken up to heaven, the apostle John received a magnificent vision of glory. He said, "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it…and the Lamb is the light thereof" (Revelation 21:22-23). In other words, the only temple in heaven is Jesus himself. Even Yeshua says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23).

And as Paul stated on Mars Hill in Athens, "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24).

Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him - the BIBLICAL concept known as Panentheism....











The simplest definition of Christian panentheism is simply that God is omnipresent and transcendent - that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us - it is wholly beyond Creation.




Personally, although the concept of God being present in creation is not necessarily a negative, I'd go with Panentheism over any other view (more shared in #26). And as it concerns the issue from a purely etymological perspective:

• Pantheism = All things are God / God is all things, or all things are part of God
• Panentheism = God is in all things

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere. ..and the Universe is so massive that it'd make sense to know there has to be SOMEONE outside of it.






These are but a few, click on the link above to see dozens of them. If you've ever heard of Louie Giglio, he actually had a video he made on the subject of just how vast the universe is...and how as incredible it is, it by itself cannot exist apart from the Lord and nothing can exist outside of Him. One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is
On the one hand God exceeds the heavens and the earth by infinity (if He could even be described in these terms); on the other hand He actually has a localized throne in heaven (specifically, the third heaven) for the benefit of His creatures (Rev.4). But it is only in heaven - it is not technically speaking heaven itself. This passage is written in poetry, and this is typical poetic language - not wrong, but rather highly dramatic to make the point. This is also noted in Hebrews 1:13 (quoting another piece of Hebrew poetry, namely, Ps.110:1) - as is a figure of the Lord's domination that is in view. The heavens are in an entirely different expression of reality than we know - including God's throne....

And with God being able to be beyond comprehension and in all places, it shows why we cannot limit him Within the world of Messianic Judaism, one of the best places to research for an understanding of Panentheism is with others who have leanings more so toward Chasidism rather than toward other sides that hold to a more classical theism mindset. Within the system of Jewish thought known as Hasidim, Hasidic Jews actually believe God is in everything. Panentheism, popular in certain Chasidic circles, seems more than relevant if/when understanding God to be both within all existence and transcendent beyond all being (more shared here, here and here). When all life as we know it is over, God will remain, the ultimate One, alone.

There is not one physical location in this universe where we can hide from the presence of God. As King David stated, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).

Through His Spirit, God’s reach extends to every nook and cranny of the universe, and there is—as David wrote—no place to flee from His presence. Others may say “But if God is everywhere, does that mean that there’s nothing seperate from who He Is”. On that, one can attempt illustrating it through the concept of water (although physical analogies can never fully define God).

If God is like water…the Ocean in which we are but a drop…then when He made all things to swim in Him, its logical to understand that all things distinct in the Ocean are not the OCEAN itself. They’re simply surrounded by it. …as the water surrounds/affects the rocks, the plants, the fish and everything else inside. As many Christians who were scientists have noted, life is well designed…and yet we know that there is an eternal/self-existent and personal God who created and upholds the universe while also being distinct from it (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, Col 1:16, etc).


This concept was something that the Biblical patriarchs understood when it came to sacrificing/doing ministry before Him WHEREVER they were - just as the believers of the Church understood when they no longer assumed that one not being in the Temple in Jerusalem (or any other location) meant that they didn't have God's Spirit in them and somehow couldn't connect with Him intimately.

For they all went back to a Patriarchial model of ministry before the Lord - where the location itself was what they were not bound to in order to serve Him/connect (and knowing what would happen to the Temple later as Christ prophesied) - all things coming full circle.

sevengreenbeans said:

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.

Click to expand...

(HINT: Of course, from a Samaritan perspective it's understood that you don't feel Jerusalem is not the place the Lord designated to meet...although that is one view by no means normative in the history of Israel - as much as it's respected - and I already know of the Samaritan narrative/have studied the issue as well as the articles.....some of them you've given I commented on and others as seen in #11 #16 - so this is not a new issue in the slightest and there's no need bringing up information as if it was the first time it was covered, sis).

Using proper analogies to pertain to a situation is always necessary - and trying to equate the Lord being in all places with a husband/wife NOT being intimate or together (as I've heard argued before) is a matter of misplaced imagery - as that'd be akin to saying that a Husband having friends with others who are female (or a wife doing the same with friends who are male) is a matter of "adultery" ...or saying that a husband and wife meeting together on vacation and travelling to different places - with her flying out to visit him in Barbados (even though they live in Kentucky) is a matter of them not being "ONE" and somehow distant because they didn't "come home" together (if it's assumed that to be "one" or "home together" means they have to always go to the place they lived when they first got married). And on the issue, I do pray it's realized that couples actually didn't always sleep in the same beds in order to be intimate - if studying the full history of the issue.....

visionary said:

I Sam 21:7

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

visionary said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Matthew 12:1-8

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Definitely worth considering what you said - for in multiple respects, David was a PROPHET, a Priest and a King...


David was a KING and a PRIEST ---and in many respects, what he did was a direct reflection of what the Messiah was going to be about. For the Lord made clear to his people in Exodus ( Exodus 19:5-7 ) that he intended for Israel to be a NATION of KINGS/PRIESTS - and yet the people themselves showed how disqualified they were and not ready for it, with Aaron/Co. being promoted to be representing the people (incdicating how the Aaronic priesthood was not always meant to be where the line stopped in God's Kingdom for ministry before him/qualification for certain levels of access)....and thus, one must wonder if the only way to accomplish that was to have others patterned after the type of King/Priest David was.....as that's exactly what Christ --the SON of David and the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16), confirmed in Matthew 1 and other places ( (Matthew 15:22, Matthew 20:30, Mark 10:47, Mark 12:35-37, Acts 4:12, etc ) ---did when he came down and made us into a nation of Kings and Priests.
The same promise the Messiah gave to Israel when he delivered them was repeated once again in the End of all things.....with the Lord noting that His people will NEVER perish due to their nature as priests of God just as Yeshua is.

We are part of that Royal Priesthood after the "Order" such as Yeshua is - with what the Lord did taking us back to the model that existed BEFORE the High Priesthood was developed and His system is reflective of what David was about - with that system being based in the type or order that Melchizedek represents, which is also represented in Yeshua. We follow Yeshua so by default if he is of the Order/Type of Melchizedek, then so are His followers......we are part of a Kingly lineage thru Yeshua , as Heirs to HIS throne.

And on Melchizedek, the entire issue of Melchisedek is something that is not easy to dismiss - as Melchisedec was known to be a PRIEST. Not one of the Levitical priesthood which came later....and even after the Levitical priesthood came about, Melchisedec would still be considered a priest of a differing type, showing how it was possible for priests to be outside of the Levitical order and never changed. For others saying that the man was not truly Christ, that doesn't mean that the man could not have been a TYPE of Christ in the work He came to do
Other interpreters see Melchizedek as a type of Christ. The comment in Heb. 7 that "without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever," would be referring to Psalms 110 according to this interpretation. There, as we saw, Messiah is a priest forever. Also, they point out, Melchizedek was king of an actual Jebusite city--Salem. Whether Melchizedek was Christ himself, or a type of Christ is not really important because either way, the lesson is the same for us--Jesus Christ is the sole authorized priest for all time in our redeemption, all other priesthoods taking a secondary status.

For more:

• Melchizedek and the Priesthood of Christ | Xenos
• Was Melchizedek a theophany or a real man? | Bible.org - Worlds ...
• Yeshua, the New High Priest (Hebrews 8-10), and Non-Levitical Priests in Israel...
• MELCHIZEDEK – A TYPE OF CHRIST Thesis: To discuss Melchizedek, a type of Christ and its significance. ...

On others existing who were priests as well long before the Levitical priesthood came up, I'm reminded of Jethro being a prominent example, as he was a priest himself/righteous man according to Exodus 2:15-17 /, Exodus 3 and Exodus 18 ..and alongside him, there's the example Job in Job 1:4-6 who'd often offer up prayers/sacfices on behalf of his children as a regular custom--a priestly function, just like it was with Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Many have often noted that Job lived in the time of the patriarchs.....due to what the Lord noted in Ezekiel 14:19-21 /Ezekiel 14 and how he was associated with Noah - as well as how he followed the model of the Patriarch.

Some of that is not a hard thought when considering how the concept of types/shadows was presrent in other examples the writers of scripture used to show us future realities. Again, we can see that in the example of David, who was a type of Christ as both Prophet/Priest and King....and whose Tent/Tabernacle was established according to Acts 15 when it came to showing the ways that a Non-Levitie reorganized worship for all (Jew and Gentile).
In Acts 15:15-17, James said that the prophets (the Septuagint version of Amos 9:12) agreed with what God was doing in the times James lived in....as it concerns believing that God will rebuild the Tabernacle of David/ David's fallen tent (WHICH was OUTSIDE of Levitical Law in the Law of Moses and yet it was incorporated into the Temple and the Levites obeyed it as I Chronicles 13-15 and I Chonicles 5-6 points out) and that is rerence to Christ and/or his kingdom —- so the remnant of men, including Gentiles who have God's name, may seek him. This quote from Amos helps bring out more clearly the way in which the progress of the church is in accordance with the Old Testament prophecies. By quoting Amos, James puts the Gentile mission into a new age. And in going through my Chronological Study Bible/reading the Life of David, what was noted in Amos about David's Fallen tent IS striking.


And David could take such precedence over what occurred with Moses since in many respects he WAS in the Office of a Priest. With David being a priest, that doesn't mean he acted exactly as one within the Levitical priesthood....and the same goes for the sons of David who were known to be priests as well (even though the line of Judah had no right to the Davidic priesthood). It wasn't really shocking for David to partake of the Showbread in light of the status he had - and in light of Yeshua's work, it wasn't surprising to see him compare himself with David's example .....


With David being in the role of a Priest, it's not surprising that David's sons were priests as well:

2 Samuel 8:17-18
Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Kerethites and Pelethites; and David’s sons were priests.
​

Click to expand...

If saying David's sons were priests, if correct (as the textual evidence seems unclear), one would have to suppose that membership into the priesthood was not limited to Levites in the time of DAvid. David already possessed significant power over the priesthood.....so him eating the Showbread - that really doesn't seem like a shocker and of course he'd be innocent. Not just innocent because of the principle of the Lord valuing mercy as Christ noted...but also innocent in the sense of the position he had as a priest/minister before the Lord. Yeshua placed himself in the SAME camp as David.

Gxg (G²);64463644 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Necessary "work", which I (personally) would not call "work", such as healing, circumcision, and offering are permitted because they are part of the Sabbath and cannot be separated from the Sabbath.

Leviticus 23:25 You shall do no manner of servile work; and you shall bring an offering made by fire unto the L-RD.

Servile work, the work of bondage, for example, is not permitted during a holy convocation or solemn assembly.

Obviously, as shown above in Leviticus 23:25, there is a difference between servile work and bringing a burnt offering.

Gxg (G²);64463726 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wow. Really?!

sevengreenbeans said:

Necessary "work", which I (personally) would not call "work", such as healing, circumcision, and offering are permitted because they are part of the Sabbath and cannot be separated from the Sabbath.

Leviticus 23:25 You shall do no manner of servile work; and you shall bring an offering made by fire unto the L-RD.

Servile work, the work of bondage, for example, is not permitted during a holy convocation or solemn assembly.



Obviously, as shown above in Leviticus 23:25, there is a difference between servile work and bringing a burnt offering
.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it according to the Lord is still deemed work - and work that is allowable.
Leviticus 16 and Yeshua's words show that even the OT provides exceptions to work on the Sabbath. Specifically, when it is God's Work and Neccessary work (such as Healing and feeding/watering). In the Case of the priests of Leviticus 16, there were obvious provisions. But Yeshua's answer is an interesting one indeed since he first states that the priest desecrates the day - and if I were a Pharisee, I would argue that the priest in fact did not desecrate the day and then I would ask Yeshua "Where do you see necessary work in the OT being a provision? I see the work of the priest but never do I see 'necessary” work' "

The priests had certain duties that are outlined by God as permissible - and technically, the ones closest to not reading into the text were the Pharisees, for one to have legal grounds to pull your sheep out of a pit, one needs a provision from God that allows one to pull the sheep out of the pit on the Sabbath. However, God does not give such a provision – he only gives the priests provisions – under a strict literal approach.

Could one argue that Yeshua was reading into the text? I believe so - and it would be right of him to do so. In multiple respects, he was reading the law with SUBTEXT and laid out a problem for us - for he does not say “You can do vocational work”...nor does he argue “It’s ok to do necessary work”.

Specifically, what his argument against the Pharisees was about is “You can do good work” - and one can easily argue He means ALL GOOD WORK is permissible on the Sabbath (from sheep out of a ditch to helping neighbors and having community). From here, one may ask "Where is he getting that from the OT? - and I'd note he was doing so on the basis behind why the Lord gave the Sabbath to begin with since it was not meant to be a burden in any way......or a matter where wooden interpretation of the Law led to others missing out on the Spirit of the Law when it comes to walking in mercy/justice.

Whether the good work is vocational OR unnecessary is irrelevant – which is why the Lord does not employ such an argument. If taking things further, on what day of the week are we to do bad (evil) work? Of course the answer would be that on no day of the week can we conduct evil - and thus, if God permits only good work on the Sabbath and only good work throughout the week then “rest” as we understand it – that is not literal. For if rest is what God wants then why does he permit good work?

Ultimately, the Pharisees understood God's command as in “NO WORK AT ALL” (primarily because that’s what the text says literally) - and that’s why I understand others who may tend to say it’s unlawful to do “non-vocational” work on the Sabbath. However, that is not entirely true since it’s unlawful to do BAD work on the Sabbath - but it is lawful to do GOOD WORK on the Sabbath (vocational or non-vocation.... necessary or un-necessary)......meaning that the rest is about doing what is right. At any time, to do evil is to live in unrest ...but to live in righteousness (good) is to live in peace...

Granted, even in the OT, there was a view of harvesting that was necessary and divine, while providing a fire or carrying wood would be labor (and presumably subject to capital punishment - as Numbers 15 notes with the man stoned for doing something that wasn't necessary that day - many noting that there was more going on than simply gathering wood since many times choosing to do work on the Sabbath was done at the expense of one's family and done for the sake of being workaholics - a sin that destroys family....as discussed in #31 of Sabbath: What Do You Personally Do and How Do You Observe It? )....

sevengreenbeans said:

Wow. Really?!

Click to expand...

Really - no more shocking than the CEO of a company setting rules and being allowed (by right of his job) to either interpret old rules set up in different ways.....or opening the door for new ones to develop. I've yet to see an employee get away with telling their boss (when a new code/administrative standard is developed) that the boss has no right to give different interpretation to the company they set up.

And with Christ, it was the same on the Sabbath when he referenced the Priests and noted His role with the Sabbath - being Lord over it. For For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. The Messiah kept to the Spirit/Intent of the Law rather than the literal interpretation others had which ignored the greater reality behind it - and yhe central issue, then, was not whether or not Jesus broke the Sabbath, but who Jesus was. Once the Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Son of God, as Israel’s Messiah, then He must be held accountable for keeping all of the law. There was no protest against Jesus’ miracles on the Sabbath (cf. Luke 4:31-37) until after Jesus rejection by the Pharisees.

If Jesus broke the law, he is not the Messiah, and could not be the Messiah.


He came to teach the secrets of the Torah, and what it really meant, but if he broke the law, he could not have been the Messiah.

HannibalFlavius said:

If Jesus broke the law, he is not the Messiah, and could not be the Messiah. He came to teach the secrets of the Torah, and what it really meant, but if he broke the law, he could not have been the Messiah.
.

Click to expand...

That'd be akin to saying the work of believers is against the Law since it was not condoned by the Levitical priesthood during the time of Messiah when they didn't look to the High Priest present for redemption and instead looked to Christ. There's always the issue of the Lord having the right (as the author of a system) to develop it as he sees fit - none being able to argue "But we did sacrifices for sin before God - you can't have the NEW Messiah say we don't do sin sacrfices anymore since Moses prescribed it" or being able to say "But the Messiah doesn't have the right to throw things over in the temple and not be arrested" (John 2)..

He will always be in line with the proper interpretation of how things were meant to go - and where we see him doing differently than Moses did and doing different, He is still and will always be the Messiah - just as Moses was not a false prophet simply because he differed greatly from how the Patriarchs did things or the Prophets who came later .

As noted before, some of this was discussed before in previous discussion here and here in the thread entitled Messianics and Dispensationalism - as noted before:

Gxg (G²);64480539 said:

That's akin to saying the work of believers is against the Law since it was not condoned by the Levitical priesthood during the time of Messiah when they didn't look to the High Priest present for redemption and instead looked to Christ. There's always the issue of the Lord having the right (as the author of a system) to develop it as he sees fit - none being able to argue "But we did sacrifices for sin before God - you can't have the NEW Messiah say we don't do sin sacrfices anymore since Moses prescribed it" or being able to say "But the Messiah doesn't have the right to throw things over in the temple and not be arrested" (John 2)..

He will always be in line with the proper interpretation of how things were meant to go.

Click to expand...

His throwing things that were not supposed to be in that house was not breaking the law.

Phineas is commended for having stopped Israel's fall to idolatrous practices brought in by Midianite women, as well as for stopping the desecration of God's sanctuary.



What they were doing should not have been done, and they were the ones desecrating the Temple, and the court.


The zeal shown by Jesus for his father's house was a righteous act, not a sin.


Whips make sheep move.



.

[Lulav]
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?

Click to expand...

David demanded the priest give him something to eat...whatever was under his hand, or anything else he had to eat.

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?

Click to expand...

Yeshua did say David sinned. He said it was unlawful for David to eat showbread which was meant instead for priests. There are some problems with this situation involving David.

Ahimelech was not the High Priest, but rather his father Abiathar. Dealing with the showbread was the job of the High Priest. Abiathar and Ahimelech were descendants of Eli. Eli was not eligible to be High Priest in the first place, according to the Torah. (Not during his lifetime, anyway. Ithamar's descendants have always been "eligible" for High Priest, but only after Eleazar's descendants had died out or after there were no more eligible males available from Eleazar's lineage. Eli would have been priest and servant to the descendants of Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, etc.) So, because it was the descendants of Eli handling the "showbread", the whole situation becomes questionable.

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.

Click to expand...

There are MANY instances in which David went against the Torah.

The text says:



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!

Click to expand...

I believe the ephod of the High Priest was indeed made of all linen, since it is forbidden to mix wool and linen. This topic has already been exhausted elsewhere in MJ threads showing where words have been added to the text and don't exist in the original text, etc. Linen can be dyed. However, you are right, this ephod may not have been of the High Priest's garments. David was exposing himself in public. This is not holy.

2Samuel 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!


I don't see where it was the L-RD who made Michal barren.


2Samuel 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which you have spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

HannibalFlavius said:

His throwing things that were not supposed to be in that house was not breaking the law. Phineas is commended for having stopped Israel's fall to idolatrous practices brought in by Midianite women, as well as for stopping the desecration of God's sanctuary.

What they were doing should not have been done

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, he was not a priest according to Levitical law and had no right as a teacher to do as he did - one of the reasons why others wanted him dead since from their perspective he had no business doing so in going against the official position.

As noted in #12 of Calling Other Men 'rabbi', the Lord was more so a Sage rather than an official rabbi when seeing background - and of course, the Lord is also a priest - although a King-Priest of an order not limited to the Levitical Priesthood (as said in #291 ). And as another noted best (for brief excerpt):
His action was righteous - even though it was not technically legal by Levitical standards - lest ANYONE be able (if having issue with the high priest) to walk into the temple and cause a riot with a crowd....something not allowed.

But the Lord's actions were highly political (considering how the Priesthood had been corrupted - more shared in #46 )

• The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster
• Jesus and Civil Disobedience Mohandas Gandhi

And all of his actions prophetic. As another noted from Dr. Michael Brown's ministry - as seen in Cleansing the Temple (by Christine Colbert) - Voice of Revolution:
In John, Jesus was immediately confronted by temple officials who asked, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” John revealed that the Lord responded by pointing to His future Resurrection: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19; 2:22). In doing so, He also angered Caiaphas, the high priest, whose family was in charge of the money changing in the temple. Not only did the Lord’s actions challenge the authority of Caiaphas, they also hurt his family’s financial holdings since they had grown rich from the sale of sacrificial animals. The respected historian Alfred Edersheim explained that both Josephus and the Rabbinic writings claim that Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, was in charge of the “Temple-market.” The Rabbinic writings referred to this market as the “Bazaars of the sons of Annas” while Josephus claimed that Annas (the son of the high priest Annas) was very rich and guilty of “despoiling by open violence the common priests of their official revenues.”

Caiphas was threated by Jesus and it was he as High Priest who admistered - alongside other priests who provided leadership, not only for the temple, but also for all religious and civic affairs in Jerusalem. Some other learned and powerful Jewish leaders joined with the chief priests in the effort to silence Jesus once and for all.

Of course, in the second cleansing of the temple which the Synoptic Gospels record, Jesus quotes two passages from the Old Testament. He quotes Isaiah 56:6-7, which says in full, "And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."....a powerful Old Testament prophesy about Gentile nations coming to the temple to worship.

The Lord also takes the phrase "den of robbers" from Jeremiah 7:11.....part of a larger section (Jeremiah 7:1 to Jeremiah 8:3) in which God through Jeremiah warns the people against false trust in the temple.

There is a big aspect to the fact that Jesus wasn't like a random man coming out of nowhere trying to utilize what happened with Phinneas in the Mosaic era when it came to killing others for sexual immorality. We know from the Gospels that Jesus was, for the most part, very popular among the masses (for example, Matt 4:25; Matt 8:1; Matt 9:8; Matt 12:15; Matt 13:2; Matt Matt 14:14; Matt 15:30; Matt 20:29; Matt 21:8).

Right at the beginning of his ministry, the people were amazed at his authority:
According to the text:

1. He did not have authority (semikhah) from some other rabbi and
2. He taught as if he had that authority.

To us that might not seem like a big deal, but imagine if a person who served as their own lawyer stood before the court and argued the finer points of nulla poena sine lege with the judge...and likewise, by the time Jesus reached Jerusalem, he was contending with the equivalent of the Supreme Court without having passed any bar examinations. The day after the incident in question, a cross-section of Jewish authorities asked Jesus how he thought he could get away with what he'd done:
What is clear is that the Lord didn't say, "Oh. I was given this authority by Rabban Gamaliel" - and although he does refer to John the Baptist, he did not claim him as a mentor either. Instead, the Lord seems to allude to his own baptism:
Thus, in the context of the gospels, Jesus' authority came from heaven and not from people....and it didn't matter what the High Priest or the other priests (authorized to cleanse the temple legally) felt on the matter. We do have a precedent for "cleaning house" like Yeshua did in Nehemiah 13:4-9 (NJPS):
For more, there's also the fact that 2 Chronicles 29 tells a similar story about King Hezekiah. And in both cases, the action was done by human authorities, as opposed to a vigilante civilian. They were, therefore, legal actions. Of course, if the Lord was seen as a prophet who was given divine authority, it could be argued that he had the right and obligation to speak out against corruption - and with others thinking he was either the second-coming of Elijah or a miracle-working prophet (see Mark 6:14-20), they would have expected radical, counter-establishment actions like dumping money-changers' tables and driving people and animals out of the Temple. .....but they would also expect the authorities to punish him.

Nonetheless, the Messiah had the power of the crowds behind him - and thus, the priests could NOT do anything to him at the time since they were afraid of what the people would do. And yet even with that, the Lord understood the OFFICE of High Priest and what was entailed with it.....

Gxg (G²);64480576 said:

Originally Posted by HannibalFlavius
His throwing things that were not supposed to be in that house was not breaking the law. Phineas is commended for having stopped Israel's fall to idolatrous practices brought in by Midianite women, as well as for stopping the desecration of God's sanctuary.

What they were doing should not have been done, and they were the ones desecrating the Temple, and the court.


The zeal shown by Jesus for his father's house was a righteous act, not a sin

Click to expand...

in the context of the gospels, Jesus' authority came from heaven and not from people....and it didn't matter what the High Priest or the other priests (authorized to cleanse the temple legally) felt on the matter. We do have a precedent for "cleaning house" like Yeshua did in Nehemiah 13:4-9 (NJPS):

Earlier, the priest Eliashib, a relative of Tobiah, who had been appointed over the rooms in the House of our God, had assigned to him a large room where they used to store the meal offering, the frankincense, the equipment, the tithes of grain, wine, and oil, the dues of the Levites, singers and gatekeepers, and the gifts for the priests. During all this time, I was not in Jerusalem, for in the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes of Babylon, I went to the king, and only after a while did I ask leave of the king [to return]. When I arrived in Jerusalem, I learned of the outrage perpetrated by Eliashib on behalf of Tobiah in assigning him a room in the courts of the House of God. I was greatly displeased, and had all the household gear of Tobiah thrown out of the room; I gave orders to purify the rooms, and had the equipment of the House of God and the meal offering and the frankincense put back

​

For more, there's also the fact that 2 Chronicles 29 tells a similar story about King Hezekiah. And in both cases, the action was done by human authorities, as opposed to a vigilante civilian. They were, therefore, legal actions. Of course, if the Lord was seen as a prophet who was given divine authority, it could be argued that he had the right and obligation to speak out against corruption - and with others thinking he was either the second-coming of Elijah or a miracle-working prophet (see Mark 6:14-20), they would have expected radical, counter-establishment actions like dumping money-changers' tables and driving people and animals out of the Temple. .....but they would also expect the authorities to punish him.

Nonetheless, the Messiah had the power of the crowds behind him - and thus, the priests could NOT do anything to him at the time since they were afraid of what the people would do. And yet even with that, the Lord understood the OFFICE of High Priest and what was entailed with it.....

Click to expand...

The principle of "Respect the Office" and knowing that the Lord still works through it is big principle within Judaic thought. And it is fascianting to see the ways that even those who harrassed the Messiah were still used by the Lord to do Divine things.
The phrase "die for the people" invokes the memory of the Maccabean martyrs (II Macc, 7:37-38). With a typical Johannine double meaning, Caiaphas's pronouncement anticipates Jesus's substitutionary atonement. IMHO, the man's actions do not mean that Caiaphas — like one who was mad, or out of his senses — uttered what he did not understand. For he spoke what was his own opinion. Rather, a higher impulse guided his tongue, because God intended that he should make known, by his mouth, something higher than what occurred to his mind. What Caiaphas said at that time was done in 2 senses.....one which dealt with the wicked design of putting Christ to death, which he had conceived in his mind...and the other concerning what God had in mind when it came to how the Lord wanted Christ to die ( Acts 2:22-24 ), thus making Caiphas's words a prediction. Its similar to what occurred when God intended to bless his people by the mouth of Balaam, on whom he had bestowed the spirit of prophecy...even though Balaam's intentions were to curse (Numbers 22-25).

It is highly significant to consider Caiphas's words in light of how it makes clear that he was HIGH priest that year when he stated what he did. As said best by Oskar Skarsaune in his book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity when speaking on the ways the priesthood was set up, "The Prophetic Gift Folowed the Office - not the man."

To see the reality of how the offices others occupied were respected by the Lord - even in spite of corruption and showing a lack of any qualification for that office - is a principle in showing how the Lord can still use others who have a legal position even though they lack the morality to do the Legal job as commanded. And with the Lord intentionally causing trouble in his day - especially with his actions in the Temple and noting how transition would occur with it (as believers became the Temple of the Lord and the temple itself fell), the Lord knew how to work in the system he set up.

With the sacrifices/things being sold, the action in/of itself was not a problem......as is often summed up by many.

From around the world, first-century Jews came to the temple at Passover to sacrifice to the Lord (Ex. 12:1–28; Lev. 23:4–8) and it was impractical to bring sacrificial animals long distances... so, they were available in Jerusalem — for a price. Most Jews also paid the temple tax at Passover, and money-changers were there to convert Roman coinage into appropriate currency - but pagan mottoes on Roman money made it unacceptable for God's house. The historical facts of the event show the money-changers and dove-sellers were not doing anything inherently wrong in selling since they were performing a necessary service and were acting in accordance with Jewish laws found in the Torah. For just as tourists today in a foreign country must exchange their money for local currency, so in the time frame of Yeshua's story, visitors from other areas outside of Judah needed a place to exchange their coins for local coins. Jerusalem, being the capital and location of the temple was the center of great activity - so the courtyard outside of the temple sanctuary was a natural and appropriate place to set up exchange booths. During Passover, they came to make offerings in the temple of animals, doves, grains and fruits. And instead of traveling to Jerusalem with these offerings, many found it easier to buy the offerings in the temple courtyard thus enabling the foreign pilgrims to trade the shekels of Judea for the drachmas of the Roman Empire to purchase such items as pigeons, doves or anything else they could afford. The Torah authorizes exchanges of produce and livestock for silver...for that way coins impressed with foreign images considered idolatrous by Jews were replaced with coins acceptable as donations toward the temple's expense funds i.e. the half shekel head tax (see Deuteronomy 14:24-26).


Though not inherently evil, these practices became occasions for sin (more here and here in #291 on the Court of the Gentiles)since pilgrims paid exorbitant rates to change money, and sellers exploited those in poverty, overcharging for the poor man’s offering of pigeons and doves (Lev. 5:7).

Consequently, the Lord drove out the sellers (Matt. 21:12) since these merchants, and the priests who allowed their presence, cared nothing for true worship as long as they could make money and keep up the rituals - something that bothered the Lord since he hated sacrilege, which kept the nations from learning about the living God in His sanctuary - and the act of Christ showed Jesus him having authority to purify (even ABOVE that of the High Priest) and take charge of the temple, a messianic task (Ezek. 43:1–12) that only put Him more at odds with the Sanhedrin.

However, even with him being at odds with the Levitical Law for administration, he STILL respected the OFFICE of High Priest since you NEVER see ever making a 24/7 campaign in the Temple with always driving out merchants/sellers....as that was something only the High Priest could end fully - and as they were back again after Jesus cleansed the temple the first time, he noted it to be a problem but moved on with ministry.

Gxg (G²);64480576 said:

Nonetheless, he was not a priest according to Levitical law and had no right as a teacher to do as he did - one of the reasons why others wanted him dead since from their perspective he had no business doing so in going against the official position.

Click to expand...

That's a very strange thing to hear from somebody who believes in Jesus, if Jesus sinned, and broke the law, he could not have been the Messiah.


But he did not break the law, nor did he do what he did without authority.


Paul explains much of that in Hebrews but why even go to Hebrews?

There is a Gazillion scriptures why Jesus was righteous in what he did, and he did no violence against the law.

He was called Rabbi how many times?

He was a teacher of the law, a Rabbi with a Talmidim.

''About the age of 30''


The same time priests begin their ministry.


Jesus was given authority by God himself in front of witnesses when he said,'' This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.''

By saying this, a son begins to build his own house.


He didn't just walk into the court as a man, he walked in as the alter itself.

Just before he came to the money changers, people were throwing palm leaves in front of him beginning his ministry.

There is a gazillion old testament prophecies of Jesus being the king Priest, a king who is a Priest.

There was no sin against the Torah found in him.


If there is a prophecy of Jesus doing exactly what he did, how could it be wrong?

If Jesus was God, how could he not be a priest?
If Jesus was just a man, he was a Rabbi and a great teacher of the law.

Either one can look at sin and decide to commit to a righteous act of pointing that sin out.


If they were in sin,{they obviously were} then how could anyone be wrong in correcting that sin?

Even if he was just a Jew and not a Rabbi.


Now you talk about their right to have sacrifices and to sell them where they were selling them.


So are you saying that they were not in sin, and Jesus was wrong?

Gxg (G²);64469197 said:

This concept was something that the Biblical patriarchs understood when it came to sacrificing/doing ministry before Him WHEREVER they were - just as the believers of the Church understood when they no longer assumed that one not being in the Temple in Jerusalem (or any other location) meant that they didn't have God's Spirit in them and somehow couldn't connect with Him intimately.

For they all went back to a Patriarchial model of ministry before the Lord - where the location itself was what they were not bound to in order to serve Him/connect (and knowing what would happen to the Temple later as Christ prophesied) - all things coming full circle.

Click to expand...

The Patriarchs traveled extensively and G-d is not limited, however, the Patriarchs built altars in the same place/region repeatedly. These altars were built at or near the future location of the Tabernacle. There were no altars built by any Patriarch at Jerusalem. David was the first to build an altar at Jerusalem.

Gxg (G²);64469243 said:

Using proper analogies to pertain to a situation is always necessary - and trying to equate the Lord being in all places with a husband/wife NOT being intimate or together (as I've heard argued before) is a matter of misplaced imagery - as that'd be akin to saying that a Husband having friends with others who are female (or a wife doing the same with friends who are male) is a matter of "adultery" ...or saying that a husband and wife meeting together on vacation and travelling to different places - with her flying out to visit him in Barbados (even though they live in Kentucky) is a matter of them not being "ONE" and somehow distant because they didn't "come home" together (if it's assumed that to be "one" or "home together" means they have to always go to the place they lived when they first got married). And on the issue, I do pray it's realized that couples actually didn't always sleep in the same beds in order to be intimate - if studying the full history of the issue.....

Click to expand...

This is the analogy...

1. A husband and wife no matter where they might be are still under covenant (marriage).

1. The tribes of Israel made their homes in their respective territories throughout the Land, yet still under covenant.

2. A husband and wife may be intimate without "sleeping in the same bed", or without being in the same place at the same time.

2. The Israelites had Levites dwelling within each tribal territory to help the people with covenantal issues while they were dwelling at their homes, or traveling throughout the Land.

3. A husband and wife must be in the "same bed" in the same place for true consummation of their covenant relationship.
3. The Israelites, and the Levites dwelling among them, made pilgrimage to the High Priest at the one place set aside for the people to appear before the L-RD at His appointed times to renew their covenant relationship.

I just wanted to say "I love threads like this".

There may be disagreement, but the tone of the tread is not as confrontational.

You won't find a thread like this in GT.

sevengreenbeans said:

The Patriarchs traveled extensively and G-d is not limited, however, the Patriarchs built altars in the same place/region repeatedly. These altars were built at or near the future location of the Tabernacle. There were no altars built by any Patriarch at Jerusalem. David was the first to build an altar at Jerusalem

Click to expand...

Of course altars were built repeatedly - but they did vary in location throughout the time of the patriarchs and before ....and many of them nowhere close to the location of the future location of the Tabernacle.

While the altar built by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20) is the first recorded reference to an altar, it cannot be doubted that some type of an altar was surely involved in the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:3-4).

Mentioned in Genesis 12. 7, ‘And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him’. .....this took place on the arrival of Abraham to the land of Canaan, in obedience to the call of the ‘God of glory’ who appeared to him while still in Mesopotamia, as verified in Acts 7:2. The building of this altar corresponds to Hebrews 11. 8, which states, ‘By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, OBEYED; and he went out, not knowing whither he went’.

The expression "calling on the name of the Lord" has reference to worship at the altar and seems apparent from Genesis 13:4 which tells of Abram's returning from Egypt to Bethel "to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. So also, Abraham at Beersheba is said to have "called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God" (Gen. 21:33); and in view of his previous practice of altar building, it is reasonable to assume that it implies that also at Beersheba an altar was built and sacrifice offered.

When Abram arrived in Canaan at Shechem, after the Lord again appeared to him saying, "To your descendants I will give this land"; and of Abraham it is related, "And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him" (Gen. 12:7). Then upon moving south to near Bethel he again "built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord" (Gen. 12:8). After his sojourn in Egypt, necessitated by the famine in Canaan, he came back to the altar site near Bethel, "And there Abram called on the name of the Lord" (Gen. 13:4). Further, when he and Lot had separated and Abram moved to the region of Hebron, he "built an altar there to the Lord" (Gen. 13:18). And as noted before, he apparently later built one near Beersheba. Yet one other time is it recorded that Abraham built an altar. While he was still in the land of the Philistines, God tested him, telling him to go to Moriah and offer Isaac for a burnt offering. Upon their arrival, "Abraham built an altar there" (Gen. 22:9).

When he went to Gerar in the region of Kadesh and Shur, nothing is said of his building an altar. And when he practiced deception when Abimelech, king of Gerar "sent and took Sarah" (Gen. 20:2), it was only after this incident and one involving a well of water which Abimelech's servants had taken from Abraham's herdsmen that the record tells us that "Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God" (Gen. 21:33).

From Abraham to Isaac, altars were consistent. Isaac came to Beer-sheba, the Lord appeared again to him, telling him not to fear, and renewing to him the promise made to his father Abraham of blessing and increase (Gen. 26:24). It was then that Isaac built his altar, and called on the Name of the Lord - and later in the life of Jacob, we see the same concept. Jacob was under the oak by Shechem, the patriarch and his household and told to go up to Bethel, as God had commanded. God put His terror on the cities surrounding Shechem, so that Jacob and his house were not molested by those who would have done him harm. Coming to Bethel, Jacob built the altar for which God had asked, and he called the place El-beth-el, which means, God of the House of God. The patriarch had now entered into God's purpose for him, that which he had spoken of so long before, when, fleeing from the anger of his brother, he had vowed, "If God will be with me . . . so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house" (Gen. 28:20-22).

We can see the same concept even outside of the Patriarchs era.....for the warriors of the two and a half tribes, who had chosen their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan, had faithfully fulfilled their promise to fight with their brethren for possession of the land of Canaan, and were returning to their homes, but, as they reached the Jordan, they were aware that the river separated them from their brethren, and they feared lest, at some future time, they would not be acknowledged as belonging to Israel, and so built "an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to" (Joshua 22:10).

And with David, his altar was highly significant in light of the history of the people he was dealing with. Due to his sin with the census, when faced with the choice of famine, fleeing before his enemies or with pestilence, David chose to fall into the hands of the Lord, knowing that "His mercies are great". But the judgment had to fall upon Israel to vindicate the word of God, and when the destroying angel came to Jerusalem to destroy it, "the Lord repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand" (2 Sam. 24:16). The destroying angel was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite when his hand was stayed, and Gad the prophet came to David, "and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah".

In the ancient world the threshing floor was thought of as a place where divine power might manifest itself (Judges 6:37, I Kings 22:10) - and Araunah is not a Semitic name.....with many scholars proposing that his ancestry was Hurrian or Hittite - with the pertinent fact for this account being that he was a Jebusite, a member of the PRE-Israelite population of Jerusalem (Genesis 10:15-16, Genesis 15:20-21 / Genesis 15, Exodus 3:7-9 Joshua 15:62-63 ), many of whom lived in the hills in the vicinity of their city, Jebus, better known as Jerusalem. . The Jebusites were the indigenous inhabitants of Jerusalem whom Joshua failed to drive away (in Joshua 15:63, Judges 1:21) - and they were subdued by David in Second Samuel

David's altar and offerings were for the staying of the plague, but the threshing floor of Araunah, or Ornan the Jebusite, was the place where the temple of the Lord was built by Solomon, and where the altar of burnt offering, and the golden altar, were erected for the worship of Jehovah the God of Israel - and it is interesting that the altar David made was made in the home of a person belonging to one of the groups Israel was told to wipe out....indicating God's Heart for Mercy/Redeemption and honor. David bought a threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite in order to build an altar (II Sam. 24: 18–24), and also because David may have integrated Jebusite craftsmen and officials into his service.

For this altar therefore reminds us of the sovereign mercy of God towards His people, the God who remembers mercy in judgment, and who selected the place where His mercy was shown for His dwelling place amidst His people (2 Sam. 24:21; 2 Chr. 3:1) - and a place for all, whether Israelite or not, to come and serve in His Kingdom. It is of high significance that the Second Person of the Trinity, appearing pre-incarnate as the Angel of the LORD, stood at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, bearing a sword and bringing judgment upon Israel for King David's sin of numbering the peoples - and this same threshing floor became the location of the Temple; and it was again at this same Temple (rebuilt) that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of David, Jesus, would later with a whip drive out the money changers for profaning the Temple

At this altar did David therefore offered sacrifices, and later prepared to build the temple here (II Chronicles 3:1), a site which was also on Mount Moriah where Abraham had been asked to offer up Isaac (Genesis 22:1-2).

But all of that is to say that altars have had a very intricate history - one where the Lord did many amazing things, through his people in travel.....and in honor of the Spirit that Abraham walked in (who is the father of faith according to Romans 4 and Galatians 2-4 - especially as it concerns Gentiles), the dynamic of where altars become set up and how they are used to honor the Lord is of importance when it comes to seeing the model made available for believers.

sevengreenbeans said:

This is the analogy...

1. A husband and wife no matter where they might be are still under covenant (marriage).

1. The tribes of Israel made their homes in their respective territories throughout the Land, yet still under covenant.

2. A husband and wife may be intimate without "sleeping in the same bed", or without being in the same place at the same time.

2. The Israelites had Levites dwelling within each tribal territory to help the people with covenantal issues while they were dwelling at their homes, or traveling throughout the Land.

3. A husband and wife must be in the "same bed" in the same place for true consummation of their covenant relationship.
3. The Israelites, and the Levites dwelling among them, made pilgrimage to the High Priest at the one place set aside for the people to appear before the L-RD at His appointed times to renew their covenant relationship.

Click to expand...

Up to point three do things work since consummation occurring in the same bed doesn't go with saying that the Israelites all had to be in the same location in order to worship the Lord since it does not deal with the reality where the Lord already had Israelites in two different locations consummating relationship with Him under His own direct command - and to argue past that would be a matter of begging the question/assuming the premise that they had to all be in ONE place with ONE high priest before anything occurred....though that has yet to be verified fully in scripture. There were times, of course, where things got developed for all Israel to go to one location in FULL - but there were also times prior where locations had duality of worship......

Human analogies break down at some point since they are finite and we're dealing with an Infinite God who is beyond understanding fully - and thus, the marriage analogy can only go so far if trying to limit God SOLELY to how a Husband/Wife operate. For meeting in one location when it came to pilgrimage/sacrifices as an illustration of intimacy in bed with couples would also need to consider that believers could be intimate with the Lord in their own fellowships on the road - or saying their prayers going to bed when it comes to the Holy Spirit inside of us....who dwells in our hearts.

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:19)

Click to expand...

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30)


“Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.” (2 Corinthians 1:21)

Click to expand...

To argue with the marriage analogy on that aspect and say you ALWAYS have to be in the same location is to argue that others in scripture not in the same location as others in the Lord must be disconnected with him - and that wouldn't go fully with the whole of God's Word (more shared in #45 ).

Gxg (G²);64481842 said:

Originally Posted by sevengreenbeans

The Patriarchs traveled extensively and G-d is not limited, however, the Patriarchs built altars in the same place/region repeatedly.
​

Click to expand...

altars have had a very intricate history - one where the Lord did many amazing things, through his people in travel.....and in honor of the Spirit that Abraham walked in (who is the father of faith according to Romans 4 and Galatians 2-4 - especially as it concerns Gentiles), the dynamic of where altars become set up and how they are used to honor the Lord is of importance when it comes to seeing the model made available for believers.
​

Click to expand...

For clarification on what I'm saying....

The patriarch model (the Pre-Mosaic model) must be kept in mind when it comes to what the Messiah took people back to - as they were models of community apart from the Temple Model and the Tabernacle model first given in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 25-36, Exodus 38 , Exodus 39, Exodus 40, Leviticus 8, Leviticus 17 , Numbers 1:52-54 /Numbers 1 , Numbers 3 , Numbers 4, Numbers 9 , Numbers 10 , Numbers 16:8-10 , Numbers 19:12-14 )...one where much travel was involved. Some are of the mindset that the synagouge concept (as it was not outlined within scripture as a command) was meant to be something that could evolve with the times (seen here/here/here )....and one that eventually did when Jewish believers were being kicked out of synagouges for their faith.....with them having to learn how to live mobile just as Christ did.

The early church seemed based more so on a Patriarchal model as well as a tabernacle model ....often accussed of not supporting Temple. The example of Stephen comes to mind, as he refuted the final charge, that he has spoken imroperly against the Temple (Acts 6:13-14), by showing that it was the people, not God, who wanted a dwelling place or house more substantial than the Tent of Witness or "Tabernacle" originally authorized in the Torah ( Acts 7:43-45 ). The concept of the temple came into more view under the life of David---as seen in 2 Samuel 7:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7 ( 1 Chronicles 6:31-33/1 Chronicles 6, 1 Chronicles 22:4-6, 1 Chronicles 23:25-27 , and 1 Chronicles 24-26 )- --- when it came to his desire for a physical temple for God. The Lord conceded....and of course, the centralized location of Temple had its benefits---especially as it concerned management. There were many benefits to having a mobile place of God's dwelling..and its something that's often discussed for reference today when it comes to the concept of Simple/Organic and Missional Church....a church that's based on the concept that church is not a building as much as the people/God's prescence within us. The Lord would often go places/not preach at all because of what His Spirit BROUGHT in (i.e healings, miracles, deliverance, etc), some of it similar to a good old fashion Tent Revival when seeing how the Lord sometimes ended up doing deliverance ministry/laying hands on people for hours rather than preaching

Yeshua lived out the mobile concept of God's prescence when going to places/preaching there even when others would not while they remained in synagouge. Although he often preached in synagogues, it was never done to establish a case against preaching in other formats.. Jesus and the apostles frequently taught in synagogues (Matt. 4:23; Lk. 4:15; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10, etc). However, Jesus did use synagogues to teach against Jewish traditions that were inaccurate and he spoke in synagouge on misconceptions about the Law. In one of the more notable of these passages the Jews became so angry over what Jesus taught in the Synagogue that they tried to kill Him (Luke 4:16-29). Luke 13:10-17 also records an occasion on which Jesus taught in a synagogue, but people were also upset with Him there. In fact, this passage shows that Jesus debated in the synagogue.

Because of who Christ was and what He represented, he was often kicked out of synagogues...and the same went for his followers, as synagogue members were excommunicated for believing that Jesus was the Messiah (Jn. 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2).

It is because of those factors that Christ often went to the mountains or the fields and preached in the places that could be accessible for all....in the same way that many churches do so today. His preaching in synagouge was indeed beautiful - as well as ministry in the Temple - but it was not His focus when it came to preaching wherever he could to bring people to Him For more info on the issue, one can go online and consider investigating the following:

• " Church and Culture: The Church as a Third Place"

• "Toward a Missional Spirituality. - Missional Spirituality -short" ( )

• "Darrell Guder: Image of Temple vs Tabernacle :Missional Church Network" ( )

In regards to Acts 7, Stephen seems to make the case that the Temple (as the Jews knew of it) was inferior to the Tabernacle..as seen in the case in Acts 7. And others in the Missional Camp have noted how the Temple didn't have as much significance in the NT church with Jewish believers as it did with those in mainline Judaism. For we read that they met in homes, sure, but they also had a “third” place they seemed to frequent on a daily basis – the temple courts (Acts 2:46). While they may have been there to engage in actual temple worship on a daily basis ( Acts 3:1), it is more likely they turned the temple courtyard into the equivalent of a first-century "Starbucks" in order to gather as a community (e.g., Acts 5:12)...in honor of what God did in making them His new temple.

As said elsewhere, many Jews do not even go to synagouge and do not focus on whether a sermon or teaching is shared in synagouge simply because that was done historically. For the many who may be Jewish and yet live in the outdoors, living in a very earthy manner that would make them feel highly uncomfortable in a synagouge...and for them, they'd probably prefer the nomadic/travelling lifestyle that the Patriarchs and ancient Israel had when living outside in tents (Genesis 25 ,Genesis 13:4-6 , Numbers 1:51-53 )/farming and raising herds. If their form of ministry involved travel and gathering together in the community to have the brotherhood share words of encouragment or the main leader of the camp give his own perspective, they would see that reflected in the work of Messiah.

There has always been a very vast diversity level within Judaism itself--and many times, that doesn't seem to be well represented. On groups of Jews that may not always fit the mold, Berber Jews (seen here , here and here)come immediately to my mind, as they live in the mountains and have a lifestyle that would be RADICALLY diifferent from the way many Jews in the U.S are used to...especially as it concerns synagouge life I'm also reminded of Jews who were of Bedouin heritage..and who live off the land....and are very devout/honoring of the Lord, even though they may not have a traditional focus on synagouge as other Jewish communities do.

And with Israel/itself and its identity, you already know where I stand in regards to how many who were a part of Israel Biblically are often ignored today - especially in Eastern culture, as seen in #55 ..as well as #18 of the thread entitled Double-Take: How the Middle East IS Northeast Africa historically & had Image Change ).

Even those outside of Israel - as it concerns altars made - were accepted in their worship of the Lord - noted with Naaman the Syrian (#3 and #1 ). Even others revered in Judaic culture such as Naaman the Syrian had similar experiences:
Naaman - under the impression that Israel's God can only be worshipped in the land of Israel/sacred territory - asked for dirt since it was necessary to create a "miniature Israel" in Syria - and of course, the question of how God could be worshiped in a foreign land became a serious one for Israel during the exile (Psalm 137:4)....but the reality of the matter is that actions were done symbolically because of what they symbolized. Two mules' burden of earth— Dirt with which to make an altar (Ex 20:24) Someone could have easily claimed Naaman wanted to worship dirt - but that was not his intention.

Moreover, when he bowed down, he knew the intent behind what he was doing - even though others around him had differing views. There was simply a view of sacredness not being limited by location. And For those Jewish communities in existence today that are adapted to a nomadic lifestyle, to hear of synagouge being mandatory for true fellowship/sharing of the scriptures is foreign to them. They are in the same camp as other Jewish groups (As well as the patriarchs) who traveled extensively and lived off the land..

And in multiple respects, they are closer to the spirit of the Patriarchs (Job especially since he lived in the land to the East ) - which Christ understood/reflected - when it came to making worship mobile with altars/honoring him:

sevengreenbeans said:

The reason the office of the high priest had political power at the time of the Maccabees, and afterward, is because they were appointed to the office by those in power, rather than by birthright.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, it does not seem that Scriptural history is against the concept of having others who were not Levites by birth becoming priests themselves...as seen in Isaiah 66:21

18 “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come[a] and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory.

19 “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. 20 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the Lord.​

As one commentator noted:

Verse 21. - And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites; literally, and I will also take of them unto the priests and unto the Levites; i.e. I will add to the existing body of priests and Levites, who are pro-sumably Jews, fresh members from the newly converted Gentiles.

And I will also take of them for priests,.... That is, of the Gentiles, the brethren brought as an offering to the Lord; and therefore must respect Gospel times, when the Aaronic priesthood would be changed and cease, which admitted not of Gentiles, nor any of any other tribe in Israel, but the tribe of Levi; nor is this to be understood of the spiritual priesthood common to all believers, 1 Peter 2:5 since of those converted Gentiles brought, not all, but only some of them, would be taken for priests; and therefore can only be interpreted of the ministers of the word, who, in Old Testament language, are called priests, though never in the New Testament; but elders, bishops, overseers, pastors, and teachers.​

We can see how the Old Testament prophesy stated that Levitical priests will never cease offering sacrifice:

"For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices forever. The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me." Jer. 33​

And yet the Old Testament also prophesied that God intended to extend the Levitical priesthood to include non-Jewish people, meaning which meant it would no longer be hereditary..[


Also, as Derek Leman (although I don't agree with all things he has noted before) said best in the following - for a brief excerpt:

The claim of special Jewish privilege is not an accurate understanding of Israel’s election as the chosen people. It is a special responsibility more so than privilege, a calling to be holy. The blessings of chosenness do not mean any individual Jew is right with God simply by virtue of Jewish birth. Each individual Jew has a responsibility to believe God and join in God’s mission on earth.

That mission was stated in the Abrahamic Covenant even before the Sinai Covenant was given. God has great blessings for the Jewish nation. Yet this nation is to be the people of blessing to all families on earth. Israel is the vessel and the Gentiles are the goal. “In you,” said God, “all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3). This calling of Jewish people to be the vessel, like the oil lamp that bears the flame, is further specified in the Sinai Covenant: “You will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Priests represent God, mediating the knowledge of him to others. Who are the others for whom Israel will be priests? The only others, besides Israel, are the nations. A holy nation is one people among the many of the world set apart, called to an elevated level of holiness. This elevated holiness can be seen in the Torah in certain sign commandments required only of Israel: Sabbath, food laws, circumcision, fringes and other holiness markers.

Isaiah is a collection of prophecies which makes much of the theme of Gentiles and blessing.....In the scroll of Isaiah, Gentiles are not an afterthought. Israel’s chosenness is about teaching the nations who God is. Also, in Isaiah, the Gentiles are not just recipients of revelation from Israel. The Gentiles also reveal God to Israelites, even bringing Israelites back to God. The Gentiles are both recipients and revealers. In the same way, Israel on the whole is a revealer, but many Israelites are recipients. The light of God shines through Israel to the nations, but in many cases the nations receive the light better than Israelites, so that, in the end, Gentiles are bringing back Israelites in their arms to God.​

Amazing that a Gentile, unclean, can become a clean vessel through Messiah....in the same way that God (as the author of the rules/systems within the OT) is able to alter them in freedom and be consistent with Himself/his goals. More on the issue was noted in excellent works such as Inclusive Voices in Post-exilic Judah - a work which "identifies differences among the texts to argue for new dimensions of inclusiveness now proclaimed in the post-exilic writings" while at the same time recognizing that "other texts from the same period propose policies of exclusion: Ezekiel 44 and Ezra/Nehemiah" - arguing that "The fact that such opposite points of view remain in the Scriptures allows the Gospel writers to recall past messages of inclusiveness and use them as part of their apology for the proclamation of the Gospel"

It's my position that verses (like those you've quoted above from the book of Isaiah) are in direct opposition to the words spoken by the prophet Moshe. We are told in the Torah, that anyone bringing a message contrary to that spoken by Moses shall not be listened to, for he is a false prophet.

YHWH and Moses state in the Torah that no one can "become" a Levite.

Does YHWH contradict Himself?

Or is it fact that the Law shall not pass away as long as there is Heaven and Earth?