In part 1 of our mini-sequel What was in the Ark of the Covenant? the author explained what ‘before the Lord’ meant in the Old Testament. From that standpoint, she talked about the text passage in Hebrews 9:1-5 that is somewhat confusing to many Seventh-day Adventists. We advise the reader to read part 1 again and then to read further in this part 2.
Fulcrum7 believes in and supports the SOP; we also make the Bible our standard of faith and practice.
If you read the text translated from the Greek in the KJV ignorantly, then many things seem to be wrong. But when you come to think of it you realize that Paul is reeling off a list from memory, not preparing a scholarly dissertation on the tabernacle and its furniture.
At first glance, Paul seems to forget that the authoritative book of Moses (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) lay beside the ark of the covenant, in the Holy of Holies (Deut. 31:26).
He seems to locate the altar of incense in the Holy of Holies, whereas it was in the Holy (vs. 4).
He places the rod of Aaron and the pot of manna IN the ark when there are many texts in the Torah that place them “before the testimony,” or before the Lord, as the altar of incense stood before the testimony (see Ex 16:33,34), with a veil in between.
Mark that when Moses and Aaron got this word from the Lord, the tabernacle was not yet built. Num 17:10; Ex 27:21; Ex 30:6; Ex 40:5; Lev 24:3. When the tabernacle was ready to be erected, God ordered Moses specifically to put the two tablets of the testimony in the ark – and nothing else, Ex 40:20.
Mark that the Lord says to Moses in Numbers 17:7, 10 to bring the rod BACK or AGAIN before the Lord, namely to where it was the previous night.
Mark how Moses knew this place. He commanded in Deuteronomy 31:26 the Levites who took care of the ark to place the book there, for the Holy of Holies was off-limits for him. How then could he go and fetch the rod from before the Lord (Numbers 20:7‐9)? Only if the rod was in the Holy. Being a Levite, he could enter in the Holy.
The old Greek has no punctuation marks, and subordinate clauses are not always coherent sentence parts.
Sometimes the words must be reshuffled to bring the true meaning about, that is in harmony with the context and the rest of the Bible. Context is often found in a wider perspective of the Bible book/letter under scrutiny, or even in other parts of the Bible.
If we put the original Greek text of Hebrew 9:1-5, and the KJV transliteration alongside, and don't forget the context of the matter under scrutiny (the OT sanctuary), and keeping the Greek grammatical cases in mind, and forgo interpolation of punctuation, we may read and understand the passage as follows,
1 Indeed, therefore also the first (sanctuary) had provisions for worship, 2 and for the earthly sanctuary a tent was prepared; the first (compartment), in which was both a lampstand and the table and the display of bread, which was called the holy place; 3 behind now the second curtain (of) the tent was called the holy of holies. 4 It (the tent, the sanctuary in general in verse 1, which is the core of his argument that begun in Ch.8.) had the altar of incense, the ark of the covenant overlaid entirely in every part with gold, the golden pot with manna in it, and Aaron's staff that had bloomed and the tables of the covenant, 5 and over it the mercy seat, whose glory was overshadowed by the cherubim. It is not to speak of this now in detail (Hebrews 9).
We may conclude that in this passage Paul gives an incomplete general description of the two-compartment tabernacle – consisting of a Holy and Holy of Holies-part and several objects therein. But because of the way the punctuation is placed in our Bible translations, this passage in Hebrews contradicts the Old Testament passages touching on the subject.
Remember, Paul emphasizes that he is not speaking about the details. In Hebrew 9 he is simply comparing the High Priestly service of Jesus in heaven to the service of the high priest on earth. That is his main goal and reason for argumentation.
On earth, only the high priest could perform the services of pleading for the people at the golden altar, tending the lights of the golden lampstand and once a year he may enter in the Holy of Holies. Paul states that Jesus is doing all of that in heaven right now on behalf of the believer, while not being a descendant of Aaron. He is doing that for us as an anti-type of Melchizedek, one without known earthly ancestry. In the mindset of the Jews, for whom ancestry is extremely important, that means that His origin is of a higher order.
In the first five verses, Paul compares the heavenly sanctuary to the earthly sanctuary. Then he simply lists some of the furniture and objects in the sanctuary, some in the Holy and he gives some main points about the Holy of Holies. All in random order, not assuming proper arrangement at all. It seems that he does not want to give us a lesson in the facts and details—and he says so himself! It is not his purpose to tell us where those items were. He even does not tell us that the testimony is IN the arc. He simply says that the mercy seat is above the tables of the covenant and that the cherubim overshadow its glory. He is not telling us that the rod of Aaron and the pot with manna are IN the ark because the Bible is clear that those two last items were simply not there.
The subject and key issue of Paul's teaching in Hebrew 9 is not a sanctuary lesson and not the details of the partitioning thereof. He simply compares the better service of Christ with the shadow service of the earthly high priests in Israel, and he impresses us with the contrast of the heavenly sanctuary to the earthly one.
When we understand this, we have no difficulty reading this text passage as follows (with as little punctuation as possible):
1. The first sanctuary then had indeed ordinances of worship.
2. For at that time, a first tent called holy, was carefully prepared. In it were both the lampstand and the table and the place-setting display* of the bread.
3. After yet a second veil was the tent called holy of holies.
4. The sanctuary had a golden altar, and the ark of the covenant covered all over and in all its parts with gold; the golden jar with manna and the rod of Aaron that had bloomed and the tablets of the covenant.
5. Yet above these** the cherubim overshadowing the glory of the mercy seat. It is not (my) concern now to speak in particular. ***
*literally: the place of public display
** the tablets
***meaning, part or detail
Paul is saying nothing more than this. Don't forget, he is not interested in giving us details. His core argument is to help us understand that the Ministry of Christ is superior to the Aaronite service.
Strong's concordance supports the point that the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were NOT in the ark.
Of all the Adventist scholars I have researched, only Stephen Haskell gives, in his book “The Cross and its Shadow,” the correct, Bible-based explanation.
Some may point to Ellen White's writings, that she was brought in vision to the ark in heaven and that she saw therein, apart from the two stone tablets, the pot with manna and Aaron's double folded staff (Early Writings, p.32).
I do not question the correctness of what she saw, but I think that it is possible that she too was put on the wrong foot by the English translation of the Greek in King James Version.
Because for several reasons, I am not satisfied with this explanation:
1. Some say that the pot with manna and the rod got lost when the Philistines captured the ark in the time of the high priest, Eli. But then we must make believe that unholy hands went under the lid of the mercy seat. I find that hard to digest because the record tells us that the Philistines were terrified for the chest, for strange things were happening in their land and people were dropping dead by simply looking at the chest, let alone raising its lid (see 1 Samuel 5).
2. We know that Moses had to make the ark exactly according to the model and that when the tabernacle was erected, and the glory of the Lord shone above it, there is nowhere any mention of the lid being lift off to put more things underneath. After the inauguration of the tabernacle, not even the high priest could enter except on the Day of Atonement, and then only by first offering for his sin and putting on special clothes and doing a lot of ceremonies. (Exodus 40:34,35; 1 Kings 8:10,11).
3. We find a clear statement in 1 Kings 8:9 that declares that only the tables of stone were IN the ark in Solomon's temple, and nothing else. This is complete logic if it has been the only object that has ever been IN the ark from the start.
4. The writer of 1 Kings 8 didn't find it necessary to mention where the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were. Were they included in the statement: "and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle" (Kings 8:4)? Were they already lost at that time? Were they robbed, during the turbulent times of the Judges? (See Psalm 78:60-62 and Jeremiah 7:12-14). All these would be logical explanations.
5. Some say that God translated the pot with manna and the rod to heaven and that He is keeping them under His throne (the heavenly mercy seat) there. I neither see Biblical support for this explanation – we would have to believe the words of those who claim this. The fact is that many of the holy vessels got lost during the Babylonian invasion and we find no reference in the Bible nor reason and logic that of all these objects only those two should have been translated to heaven.
6. The Bible gives us a sneak preview into the heavenly courts, when at the end of time, after the sounding of the seventh trumpet, after the six plagues and just before the outpouring of the seventh plague and the second coming of Christ, the Ark of the Covenant comes in sight of everyone on earth (Revelation 11:19). When pointing to this text, Ellen White declares that the two tables of stone are in the heavenly Ark of the Covenant and that they will appear in the heavenly skies as if written with a pen of fire. (See: 7BC 972.3/.4). She says that after the 1,000 years in heaven Christ will hold these tables up in His hands as the standard for the last judgment of the wicked. She does not indicate however whether these will be the earthly or heavenly tables of stone (see GC 639,668,669). In my opinion in both cases these can only be the heavenly originals for Jesus will not set foot on the earth until it is cleansed. In these significant last scenes in Revelation nowhere reference is made to a pot with manna and Aaron's rod. The ark is indicative of the covenant - The Ten Commandments, God's standard, the foundation stones of His government, the Covenant Text, written by his own hands.
7. The pot with manna and Aaron's rod have never been part of the covenant, and they never will, because this would assume preeminence for the fleshly Israelites with regard to salvation. God is not a respecter of persons. He would not confuse the symbolism by having these objects placed in the ark.
8. Indeed, manna was the bread of heaven (Psalm 78:24). There was nothing on earth like it. Jesus is the heavenly manna and on earth, there was none like Him. In Him, the manna symbol finds its complete fulfillment. Aaron's blooming rod was a symbol of God choosing the Levites over their brethren to be His servants. Jesus also fulfilled this symbol completely. He is the better High Priest, the ultimate Servant of The Lord. What remains as a perpetual standard are the tablets of the covenant- God's standard law. The way I see it, the pot with manna and the rod of Aaron are earthly things and symbols fulfilled.
In the end, we are left with two rhetorical questions:
Why should the Lord translate an earthly pot with manna if He has storerooms full of manna in heaven? I do not deny that Ellen White saw a pot with manna, but would that not rather be a heavenly pot with heavenly manna and not a translated earthly pot?
Wouldn't it be wise to rely on the Bible for a comprehensive answer to the question "What was in the ark"? After all, even Ellen White put the Bible on a higher platform than her own writings.
We will study Hebrews 1st Q of 2022. Looking forward to it!
****
Ingrid Wijngaarde is a member of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee in Netherlands Union of Churches Conference. She is a member of Groningen SDA Church, and a senior policy advisor for the Dutch government. She is also a dedicated opponent of women’s ordination, having written several articles on the topic.