| Author | Message | ||
| Prinsen Registered user Username: Prinsen Post Number: 13 Registered: 5-2005 |
I have some thoughts/questions regarding the Old Covenant and the two tablets of stone. If my assumptions are right I have found more proof that the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgement doesnít exist. Anyway here are my thoughts: The Covenant between God and Israel was made similar to the manner of the treaty covenants made between different kingdoms or different people in the Near East. Those treaty covenants were made between a ruling party and a ruled party where the ruling party of course set the rules of the treaty covenant. Those kinds of covenants contained a couple of things which I wonít go into any deeper here but they were very similar to the Old Covenant. Anyway, I learned in an evangelical bible-school I attended that modern archaeology has proved these treaty covenants were written down I two copies (most often on stone), one for each party, and that they where placed in the sanctuary of each parties gods (i.e. one copy for each sanctuary). Christian historians have then concluded that the tablets of stone containing the Old Covenant between God and Israel were made in two exact copies. Since God (as the ruling party) had no ìownî sanctuary on earth, he had his copy of the Covenant placed together with Israelís copy in the sanctuary of ìtheirî god which of course were the same god that they had made the Covenant with. Anyone who have heard about this and can verify? Now, Adventist theology says that there is a Heavenly Sanctuary which is the model for the earthly one in the Old Testament and that the law in the ark is an exact transcript of the one in the Heavenly Sanctuary. But my question is that if that is so, then why were there two tablets in each sanctuary? Has God so big fingers that he can not write it all down on one tablet of stone? My conclusion is of course that the earthly sanctuary is not a copy of what is in heaven but rather that it was a part of the shadow of what was to come ñ Christ! Donít know if I am way off here, so comments pleaseÖ. /Martin | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 865 Registered: 7-2004 |
As I understand it, the earthly sanctuary was made to reflect the limitations of man in his efforts to reach God. The outer court was surrounded by a curtain of badger skins sewn together and hung by means of silver rings that were attached to wooden poles. The silver represented Christ, the badger skins were meant to reflect the humbleness of humanity. There was only one way into the sanctuary. On your way in you had to go past the altar of sacrifice, you had to be washed in the laver of cleansing. When you entered the holy place everything represented Christ -- table of shew bread (Jesus' body), candlestick -- Jesus is the light of the world, and altar of incense -- the sweet smell of salvation in Jesus. Once inside the curtain of the most holy place you could only stand before God (represented by the ark of the covenant) if you were standing on the blood of the sacrifice, and the blood had to be sprinkled on the ark as well. The curtain separating the two compartments represented the fact that man was too frail to stand in the presence of a holy God. The smoke from the altar of sacrifice protected the high priest (man's representative) from death by filling the most holy place with smoke (prayers). Without the shielding of all the curtains between God and man, man would be destroyed by the holiness of God. The sanctuary was a little representation of heaven here on earth. All of heaven is God's sanctuary. In fact, all of heaven is the Most Holy Place, because that is the abode of God. No need for curtains and veils there. | ||
| Prinsen Registered user Username: Prinsen Post Number: 14 Registered: 5-2005 |
Belvalew, I do agree with what you are saying. You articulate it more accurate than I did. I should have said that the sanctuary points us to to Christ and underlines our need for him. I agree also that the Most Holy place reprecents heaven. After Jesus finished his work on earth he went directly to sit at the fathers side, i.e. he went direct into the Most Holy place. Those things are quite clear to me. What I wanted to adress with this thread was the similarities between Near East treaty covenants and the Old Covenant in how it functioned. Why two tablets of stone were needed for Israel when treaty covenants otherwise had one for each party. I believe this is a problem for Adventist theology but I haven't heard any Adventist och former Adventist adressing it. Bottom line, would an Adventist say that there are two tablets of stone in the Heavenly Sanctuary? I don't believe that. God put his copy of the covenant in the earthly sanctuary along with Israels copy. /Martin | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3206 Registered: 12-2003  |
Martin, I believe you are correct in your conclusions re: the tables of stone and their being two copies of the same thing rather than two tablets each with part of the decalogue. In his artilce "The Unity of the Law" in the Nov/Dec, 2004 issue of Proclamation, R.K. McGregor Wright states the same conclusion and gives the same explanation regarding the two parties placing the agreement in their respective temples. The earthly sanctuary, however, was both the Israelites' temple and the physical residence of God's glory among them, so both copies were in the same tabernacle. Colleen | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 868 Registered: 7-2004 |
I think that it says the tables were engraved both front and back, so yes, it is very possible that both copies were enclosed within the ark. The thing we need to remember, however, is that God's law is so holy that it needed to be contained and protected out of human sight. Once the law was copied down the tables of stone that had been written on by the finger of God went into the ark and were never seen by human eyes again. I have heard all my life about the enduring quality of the ten commandments because they had been engraved on stone. The rest of the law was of less value because it was written on papyrus or sheep skin, or whatever the media was that was used by humans. My question is, if this written-on-stone endurability was so important, where are those stones now? God saw fit to have the content of those stones transcribed or we wouldn't know what they said. Remember folks, the only thing that the law can do to us is to condemn us. Someone else had to pay the debt that these tables of stone made it clear that we owed. The debt is paid for all time and all we should be concerned about is showing our gratitude to our benefactor. Thank you Jesus! Belva | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1250 Registered: 7-2003  |
I'm a little curious about something you said, Belva, regarding the skins as dividing walls. On another thread, there has been some speculation about meat in heaven, and I wondered what the official SDA teaching was about this sanctuary in heaven and did it have the same kind of skin dividing walls as the one on earth? Forgive the ignorance, I'm not that familiar with the old temple components, but thought it might be curious if they thought the walls were indeed skins in heaven all the while saying meat won't be consumed. Any recollection? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3214 Registered: 12-2003 |
H-m-m-m, I don't remember the issue of skins in the heavenly sanctuary ever coming up! Does anyone else? When these kinds of discrepancies would surface, the explanations would take us back to the "symoblism" of everything. "Symbolic" and "literal" seemed pretty self-serving adjectives. Depending upon the subject, Bible passages could be explained either way in order to support the desired doctrine... Colleen | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 869 Registered: 7-2004 |
Actually the badger skins (badgers are unclean, aren't they) were used for the curtains that contained the courtyard surrounding the sanctuary. Now I think I should go back read up on the components again to see what sort of cloth/skins were used for the outer walls of the sanctuary itself. The veil curtains were made of finest linen and embroidered all over with gold thread. The inside of the sanctuary must have been unbelieveably beautiful. The value of the enclosing materials became greater the closer one came to the most holy place. All of the furniture was made of acacia wood overlaid with purest gold. The ark, too was made of acacia and gold, with the cover being totally made of purest gold, as were the representations of the cherubim that knelt atop the ark. The pure gold covering on the ark was the ark's representation of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who has protected us from the condemnation of the law that He separated us from. When you realize that the whole sanctuary service was a pantomime of that one fact, why would you want to create a religion that worships the law rather than the one who saved us from the certain death that the law declares? It amazes me even today that I was duped by all of that lawkeeping mumbo-jumbo. I guess we humans are fiercely independent and don't want to admit that there are some things that we are helpless to do for ourselves! Thank you Jesus! Belva | ||
| Jan Registered user Username: Jan Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2005 |
When the veil was rent at the moment Jesus died on the cross, was the Ark of the Covenant there? I think it had been hidden at that time, showing that all the religious ritual was merely "pretense"--since God's presence (the Ark) was gone. Please tell me if my understanding on this is correct. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 871 Registered: 7-2004 |
The ark disappeared from history at the time of the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. It was rumored that Jeremiah hid it as he was High Priest at the time. There is a current rumor that the ark is hidden away in a chapel or church in Ethiopia and is guarded day and night by a special order of priests that also remain hidden away. This cannot be confirmed, however, because no one else has ever been allowed to see what it is they are guarding. I think your assessment is correct. The veil in the temple at the time of Jesus' crucifiction covered or hid nothing. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2192 Registered: 3-2004  |
Rev. 11:19 says "then the temple of God in heaven was opened and the ark of His covenat was seen in His sanctuary, and there were lightning flashes, rumblings, peals of tunder, an earthquake and a terrific hailstorm." This happened after the seveth angel blew his trupmet in verse 15. So, to me it sounds like the ark is in heaven. Though I do not see any special emphasis of the ten commandments/sabbath emphasized. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 873 Registered: 7-2004 |
Maybe, but there is also a statement somewhere in scripture that nothing of earth will be in heaven. You and I must be changed before we can go there. It is also stated that the furnishings of the sanctuary are copies of things that were in heaven. Perhaps the ark underwent a transformation and was taken to heaven, but I still believe that it is here on earth somewhere, waiting to be found. I remember my parents speculating that if it were ever located archiologically, the time of the end would be very near. In Revelation, John speaks of seeing One Like Unto the Son of Man walking amount the candlesticks, which is an allusion to Jesus walking in the heavenly sanctuary, namely the Holy Place, because the furniture matches the furniture in the Holy Place. Interestingly, the seven candlesticks in Revelation no longer represent the things they may have pointed toward in the original sanctuary service. They now represent the seven churches that shortly afterward received messages. I wonder, did the candlesticks always point forward to the Christian Church? I know that in the sanctuary service they represented Jesus who is the Light of the World. Just musing. | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 114 Registered: 4-2004 |
I may be totally wrong on this, but IMO I think we need to guard against being concerned about an "ark" in heaven. The Bible teaches that God is "Spirit", not flesh, not solid. Angels are also spirits. To me, it is reasonable then to conceive of all heaven in the same terms. In other words, heaven and everything in it is not composed of matter. Having said this, I think that God was showing truth to John in symbolic visuals that John could understand. But I really doubt that there is furniture in heaven that we could touch. Just my opinion, Dane | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2195 Registered: 3-2004 |
The way I see it, is it is not a salvation issue. Whether the ark is in heaven or on earth, I do not know. I do have a video about the search for the ark and supposedly it is in Ethoipia. The important thing to me is that it is not a salvation issue. It is interesting and that is about it. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 874 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'm quite certain that the ark was merely sybolic of a religion that pointed to Christ, making it a shadow. I'm still curious about where it is and whether God will allow it to be found at some point in time. For me it is merely an artifact that is hidden away like to jars that held the Qumran scrolls. In God's perfect timing, if it serves God's perfect purpose, it will be revealed. | ||
| Prinsen Registered user Username: Prinsen Post Number: 15 Registered: 5-2005 |
Belvalew, Diana and others, I of course also see this as an non-salvation issue, a symbolic thing, but though a bit interesting. Because EGW said the earthly sanctuary/tabernacle is an exact copy of what is in heaven. I believe that with modern archaeology and historical facts we truly can question the EGW statement to be true. There simply is NO reason why there should be two tablets of stone in the tabernacle of Israel if there is a heavenly sanctuary in heaven as well. And I do believe that if the ark of the covenant were to be found it would show to exact copies of the same thing. /Martin My point with starting this thread was to point out another inconsistency with Adventism and historical facts but maybe my (sometimes) poor English made my point look differently than I thought, sorryÖ | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 875 Registered: 7-2004 |
Your point was clear, Martin. We just took off on a tangent! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1184 Registered: 3-2005 |
Martin, There is an excellent treatment of the decalogue and an excellent section on the two different versions of the decalogue at this link www.soundofgrace.com/tablets/tos.html On the left hand column is chapter two which addresses this issue well. There is also an excellent treatment of the Sabbath commandment there as well. Stan |
