THE ARK AND THE MOUNT OF JUSTICE
This article is really a chapter from the book King Of The Ark. You can read the book online here. You can also buy a printed version here.
In the Bible, Zion is repeatedly mentioned as the place of God’s justice and blessings. Today Mount Zion is the name given to a mountain next to, or south-west of, Mount Moriah, but most people do not realise that this is in fact a modern naming originating from the Middle Ages. The name Zion in biblical times referred
to the city of David and the Temple Mount. This can be seen in several Scripture references. So the real Zion was originally a part of what is now also called Moriah. As Jerusalem expanded to the west and north the term Zion would have been used for the entire city, but initially it only referred to the mountain upon which David lived, where the city of David was.
It is important to make the point that today we have two sites which both claim to be Golgotha. One is north of the city with a garden cared for by a British, Protestant association, while the other is on the western hill, where a large church is situated today. The old, originally Byzantine Church, has a church set up inside the city walls, to the west of the true Mount Zion, over what they claim is Golgotha, and thousands of pilgrims visit this place every year. It is here thatpilgrims try to transfer the holiness from a rock they claim Yeshua was laid upon after He died, to themselves.
Now if the term Zion was returned to its rightful place to the south-east of the city, upon which is the Temple Mount, the Catholic site on the western hill is not north of Zion. That is why this is so important to understand. Today the western hill is called Zion, but as we said, this is a manmade tradition which only started in the Middle Ages. Naming this mountain “Zion” was simply religio-political maneuvering.
So don’t trust that today’s modern name is not part of a religio-political agenda. The Bible itself specifically says Golgotha is outside the city gate. The remains of a wall were discovered close by this Golgotha which according to scolars supposedly placed it outside the city, but new “excavations by the GPIA during renovation work on the Church of the Redeemer in (1970-1974) however, showed that the wall was actually only the other boundary of a sanctuary for the Roman and Greek goddess Aphrodite dating to the Hadrianic period, over which Constantine built his Church of The Holy Sepulchre”. Digging a shaft underneath the church they discovered evidence of it having agriculture suggesting it was outside the wall.
However the area excavated is too small to determine exactly how the entire area looked. And I have had the opportunity to visit at the excavation myself. The evidence supporting the Orthodox/Catholic church to once have been outside the city walls are currently, in my opinion non-existent.
As this site is such an important issue to both the Orthodox and Catholic Church, the archaeologists involved might well have had certain biases aroused. Yet there are two fundamental problems with it. If the city wall was situated where they claim, Jerusalem would have been an extremely unsafe place as their city wall would have been very weak and very close up to a hill. Such foolishness would be quite an unbelievable aid to their enemies. The city would be absurdly vulnerable to catapults. Enemies could basically stand on the hill and throw rocks down at the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The modern-day city is built upon the city remains over the different time periods, however the original topography can still be clearly seen. I have personally measured the area around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and seen the difference in elevation. I didn’t use professional equipment, and so I will show an illustration made after excepted measures which still prove this point although to a lesser extent.
The other problem is that ancient maps such as the old map of Jerusalem from the early Byzantine period (see picture on previous page), proves that the site of both the Catholic and Orthodox Golgotha was in fact inside the city wall. What’s more the “Via Dolorosa” walked by millions of pilgrims every year, did not even exist at the time this ancient map was drawn. Seeing as the map is from the early Christian era and from a church floor, if the ‘Via Dolorosa’ had existed it would have been of the utmost importance to include it. So this might prove that the idea of reverencing Christ’s route to the cross must have evolved at a later time. The Golgotha site north of the Temple Mount, outside the city, is where Ron Wyatt claimed to have found the crucifixion site and the Ark of the Covenant.
The site of the Catholic Golgotha was in fact a temple for the goddess Aphrodite during the Roman period. While the Romans occupied Jerusalem many of them worshipped their gods there. Now remember the power both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church had (and to much extent still have), and they have left no stone unturned to ensure archaeologists agree to this being the correct site. The lie has been repeated and repeated throughout history, and names have been changed as we have seen. However, while repetition may leave people believing a lie, it will never make it true. Truth I believe, is in the Bible.
“Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David” (2 Samuel 5:7). Here we are told Zion is the mountain that the temple and the city of David were built on, and that Zion’s slope extended from the temple. The western hill is higher topographically than the Temple Mount. Now when David was in his house he had to “look up” to the angel located at the place the temple was going to be built. David was also told to “go up”, directly translated ‘to ascend’ to this place from his house. Obviously David was not on the western hill but in the slope known today as the City of David (see 1 Chron. 21:16&18).
It was the same in the days of his son Solomon. “Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.” (1 Kings 8:1).
Remember how God said He would reign from between the two cherubims of the Ark? So the Ark is moved from the city of David to the Temple Mount; but notice, the Ark hasn’t left the mountain. It is on the same mountain while the city of David is expanding to the west and the north. When Solomon built the temple on this peak above the city of David it means the city of David had started to extend northward. Zion now included this extended area. Again, it is still on the same mountain, so Mount Zion is still Zion. Don’t let politics or archeologists fool you. Trust the Bible. If Zion was now on the west of the city of David (or north-west), the name would have been completely switched from one mountain to another. The term Zion is also representative of God’s dwelling place in the temple, “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” (Psalm 76:2). Later it’s just called the holy mountain, “Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.” (Zech 8:3). This was at the beginning of the second temple period, so in the Bible the temple site is also called Zion. Remember, sometimes Zion refers to the city of David, other times in reference to God’s special mountain it is the Temple Mount where the Lord ruled from, and yet other times it is used for the entire city. So here we learn two things; firstly that God dwells between the two cherubims over the Ark of the Covenant in the sanctuary, where He revealed Himself in the first temple during the reign of King Solomon. Secondly that the mountain He reigns from is called Zion – and the Bible says God reigned from where the Ark was situated. Now the Bible indicates that God’s dwelling place upon the Ark, would be on Zion forever, “For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it” (Psalm 132:13).
So He has chosen Zion to be the foundation and base of His leadership forever, even though His literal presence is not there all the time, and we know there is no Shekinah there today and there was no Shekinah in the time of Zechariah when these words were written. Notice how all the other claims to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant place the Ark away from this chosen mountain. One claim places it in Jordan, on Mount Nebo. Another allegation is in Ethiopia, another on the western side of Jerusalem and another out in the Judean desert.
All such claims deny God’s chosen dwelling place, because the Ark would have to have been removed from His chosen mountain. Only two alleged discoveries keep the Ark on the correct mountain in waiting for the Lord’s return. They are the discovery by Ron Wyatt and the other claim that it is below the Dome of the Rock. Prophetically in the future the Lord will return and again rule from Zion.
His throne would be in ‘waiting’ at the place He said He would rule from. It is also prophesied that the “law shall go forth of Zion” (Micah 4:2). Not be moved to Zion, but to “go forth of Zion”, and as we know, God’s law is in His throne.
So let’s summarise:
– God chose Mount Zion to be the place He would reign from His Ark.
– God said He had chosen this mountain for this purpose forever.
– He will come again to judge all nations from this mountain.
– God’s law will go forth from Zion, and His law is in the Ark.
There is one more thing that is promised in regards to this same mountain but we will look at that later; first let us further consider the Ark itself.
The Bible indicates that the Ark remained on the mountain which matches Ron Wyatt’s discovery, but let’s see the route Ron Wyatt claimed the Ark was taken. Now Ron claimed the Ark rests in the northern part of the same mountain the temple once stood and where the city of David was first built. Furthermore he suggested it was taken through the tunnel systems just north of the Temple Mount, continuing along the side of Zedekiah’s Cave and onward to below the crucifixion site, where it rests today with the staves removed, the colours of the rainbow behind it and the law within it, ready to receive it’s Master and reveal the law. All of Ron Wyatt’s claims fit the biblical prophecy that the mountain will be God’s dwelling place forever, the Ark never really leaving the mountain but just travelling to the northern end of it, and that the law is there to be proclaimed to the world as prophesied in the Bible. So this discovery is in perfect harmony with Scripture, and unlike the others is not an abduction of God’s throne to Africa or the desert. God did not have to flee the country with His throne when Babylon conquered. Babylon didn’t chase the symbol of God’s Kingship into the wilderness to force Him out of His place. God chose to stay, but place the Ark in safety until the right time, the time that He would be reinstated as King. The Ark being under perfect care in the hand of God, waiting to fulfil its prophetic purpose on the very same mountain. Remember the law would “go forth of Zion” (Micah 4:2), and, “out of Zion shall go forth the law” (Isaiah 2:3). So the law has to be there to be revealed. So only two alleged discoveries fit these historical and prophetic Scriptures; Ron’s Ark and the one claimed to be beneath the Dome of the Rock, but I would eliminate the latter. You see if the Ark was really hidden there it would be below a site where the temple of Apollo once stood with his idol. It would also have been below a pagan-Christian site. Would God allow His Ark to be humiliated in that way? It would be the sign of a defeated God, a God defeated by the Romans, and by a pagan god. But if God would have had the Ark removed to the northern part of the same mountain it would not have been underneath Jupiter who was actually the Roman supreme god of justice. “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.” (Psalm 48:1-2).
When Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac but was prevented at the last minute, he was given the prophecy, “In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.” (Genesis 22:14). He was standing on the same mountain the temple was to be built on, not on the western hill where the Catholic church claims Golgotha is. The word Jehovahjireh means JEHOVAH WILL SEE (TO IT). To those who believe Yeshua was the Messiah, it was He who was the Substitute prophesied of here. I know that the Jews interpret this verse as saying the animal sacrifice was the substitute, but it was a future prophecy and therefore had a future application, which it didn’t have if the goat Abraham found was the “salvation” prophesied of. So for those who believe this was a prophecy of the salvation brought by Yeshua Messiah they have to place the Substitute’s death and suffering on the same mountain Abraham was on, thus you have to eliminate the Ortodox/Catholic Golgotha or deny the Bible! Only the Golgotha to the north of Jerusalem is situated on the mountain prophesied. In the sacrificial laws given to Israel, there were several requirements to be fulfilled in the numerous ceremonies. As they all pointed to the singular sacrifice of the Messiah, He had to fulfil several symbols all at once. One of these was, “And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.” (Lev. 1:11). Here we have the word ‘north’ again, not only saying Christ would have to be sacrificed north of the altar, but also before the altar. In fact for an offering to be accepted by God the blood had to be sprinkled before the Ark. The animals were to be slaughtered before the entrance to the sanctuary, directly before the Ark, because the law in the Ark had been broken, “And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.” (Lev. 4:4).
The law, the foundation of God’s Kingship, was inside the Ark and it was this law that judged man, but on the cross Yeshua took man’s place and hence He was the Substitute. So He had to be slaughtered in sight of His throne as well as His own law, to fulfil the law. If He wasn’t, He failed to fulfil the main symbol in the sacrificial system. The Ark therefore had to be right there when He died; and He had to die in front of it. At the same time, He was confirming His Kingship with the blood of His sacrifice, buying back His usurped children. So to fulfil this as well, He had to sprinkle His blood and water on the mercy seat, and He had to have His Kingship confirmed. So this is how all these sacrifices and prophecies were all fulfilled at the same time. Furthermore He would fulfil the sacrificial laws which stated that the blood was to be poured both on and beside the altar, “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and
the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering” (Lev 5:9). Thus was this fulfilled; Christ’s blood flowed out of His side, down the side of His cross and towards an altar. The word Mercy Seat comes from a word which can mean: “appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile”. Christians understand that Christ fulfilled all the sacrificial laws, so He had to fulfil this law too. Blood was never wasted. According to Scripture the blood was the main purpose of the sacrifice, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it toyou upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Lev. 17:11).
So the blood of Christ must have had “purpose” or direction. It could not just be sprinkled haphazardly on the ground, and Scripture says it had to be sprinkled on an altar. It certainly was not wasted when it flowed out. If Yeshua had just died on the cross without an altar, without God’s hand-written law present, He didn’t completely fulfil the requirements of a sacrifice.
Which brings us back to the concept of Christ dying on the same mountain as the temple stood.
1) The Ark never left Moriah
2) In order for Christ to die before the Ark and fulfill the sacrificial laws, He would have to be crucified on the
same mountain.
3) The prophecy given to Abraham states the Substitute would die on the same mountain.
4) Several Scriptures proclaim that it is the same place God reigns from, that He brings salvation, releases captives and brings forth righteousness.
“I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” (Isaiah 46:13).
“For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.” (Isaiah 62:1-2).
“But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.” (Obadiah 1:17). So both the plan of salvation and the Ark of the Covenant are connected to the same mountain, and under the sacrificial laws, the law in the Ark and the salvation bought by the substitute blood, all stayed very close to each other.
So the Church’s claim to the site of the crucifixion contradicts the biblical criteria. Even if it hadn’t, it is full of images and idols of God, that God Himself hates. It is a pagan temple where they perform pagan worship; worship that God’s law in the Ark condemns. While Christ was to establish His kingdom and respect His law when He died, the site of the Catholic church denies His second commandment, and several of the other commandments. It is not a place where the Lord can set up His righteousness, and God’s law is certainly not being glorified at that place. Now they may call this place Zion or Golgotha all they want, but the Bible clearly says Mount Zion was the same mountain the city of David was built on, where the temple stood and from where God reigned. Even the Via Dolorosa, where so many walk today commemorating Christ’s death, cannot be the true route according to the Bible. Yet it might still be possible to discover the route that Yeshua really walked to the crucifixion site if you employ certain Scriptures. In order to be taken to the northern Golgotha, Skull Hill, which even has a skull-like image on the mountain, some surmise Yeshua might have been taken from the Antonia fortress and down the main street at that time, then out of Damascus Gate and onward to the Golgotha Escarpment. This could very well be, but after studying it I personally believe that it didn’t happen that way. Yeshua was taken from Gethsemane, but where to? Before arriving at Pilate’s He was first questioned by the former high priest, then taken before the counsel of the serving high priest. We don’t know where the former high priest lived, but some of the most lucrative residences for some one who cherished Moses, David and Jewish history, would perhaps be on the highest hillside of the city of David, which is also as close to the Temple Mount as possible. In the time of Nehemiah we learn the priests resided in this area: “From above the horse gate repaired the priests, every one over against his house.” (Neh.3:28). So where Christ started His walk from is no certainty, but He was taken from Gethsemane either to the Sheep Gate or to the gate south of the Temple Mount. Then, as we said, the next place He is taken is to the serving high priest to be judged at his counsel. According to the Talmud, the Hall of Hewed Stones functioned as a court with authority to impose criminal sentences. This is where Yeshua had to be taken to be judged and subsequently delivered to the Romans.
According to the Talmud, during the second temple period, the Hall of Hewed Stones was built into the north wall of the temple. So Yeshua might well have been taken from the south end of the Temple Mount to the temple court, just like the Ark was when it was carried from the City of David to the Temple site. So Yeshua was judged by the high priest, north of the temple.
Then the Bible tells us He is taken to Pilate. Now according to Josephus and Philo the governors lived in Herod’s palace. Herod was present in Jerusalem but Pilate was not particularly amicable with him at the time, and so we are told that Pilate and Herod were not in the same place. Not being friends could explain why Pilate would not stay in Herod’s palace. So although many modern archaeologists now claim Yeshua was tried before Pilate on the western hill, it doesn’t fit the biblical description, and there is always the possibility that this claim is another religio-political maneuver. So the Antonia fortress then is in my opinion the place Yeshua was sentenced by Pilate. Josephus suggests the Antonio fortress was built so that the south east corner was high enough that the entire temple area was visible from there. While we think Yeshua was taken here, we must try to discern what side of it He was taken to. We already know they captured Yeshua in the dark to avoid as much attention as possible. Even though rumors grew and crowds started gathering, it is still safe to assume they would try to hide His arrest from as many people as possible, and whilst one can’t be certain, would they really parade Him at the front of the fortress leading onto the streets where crowds were shopping and preparing for Passover, or would they take Him quietly in
through the rear of the fortress? If they led Him out the rear of the fortress, Yeshua was actually taken outthe Sheep Gate after being judged by the high priest.
On this day the Passover lamb was to be slain and everyone was cleaning the leaven out of their houses.
The Bible tells us that the Jewish leaders refused to enter the Judgment Hall where Pilate was because they thought they would be defiled and thereby unable to partake of the Passover. “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?” (John
18:28-29).
However, while they waited outside the fortress they aroused a great deal of attention, and the crowd grew rapidly. Yeshua was first taken to Pilate, then sent to Herod’s and then back to
Pilate. All this attracted a great deal of attention and a crowd began to gather. And then we know Yeshua is ordered to be whipped and mocked and dressed in a crown of thorns; “in the mount… it shall be seen”. The fortress was on the chosen mount, and if they were on the east side of the Antonia fortress then they were on the exact side that the Passover sacrifices were taken on their way to be slaughtered at the temple. I believe it is here the people and the high priest called for Pilate to release Barabbas the thief instead of Yeshua, the Lamb without blemish. The priests and leaders rejected Yeshua and unknowingly fulfilled this prophecy, calling for Pilate to have Christ crucified. Yeshua was to be crucified with two other criminals, so three people were led out to be crucified. There were three people carrying their crosses to the crucifixion site. It is therefore unlikely that the route taken was through the small streets of Jerusalem, bustling with people busily cleaning, shopping and preparing for a festal Sabbath.
Bringing three wounded prisoners, down this path with such a crowd would be illogical as well as disrespectful toward the Jews and their
holy day. We already know the Romans tried to show respect to Jewish traditions and holy days as they would release a prisoner at Passover as a token to the Jewish people. That is why they released Barabbas this year. So surely they would have been led out of the fortress and then straight out of the city, because none of the gospels say even once that Christ walked through the city streets. That is just an assumption many have created in their minds – but the Bible doesn’t say it. It does however say something else, “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross” (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).
Note that they see him coming “out of the country”. Obviously they didn’t see him in the streets inside the city, but on the side where there was a countryside. So now, He would not only have been sentenced on the mount of the Lord, but would have walked the crest of that mountain to Golgotha.
So the Bible indicates a countryside scene rather than city streets, which again places us on the eastern side of the Antonio fortress. This gate on the east side is known as Lion’s Gate today, but used to be called the Sheep Gate, and the end of Golgotha is north-west of this gate. Having been taken to Skull Hill, under the highest peak on Moriah, Christ is crucified. This was a highly visible place with a busy, main road passing between the city walls and Skull Hill, making it a place where the crucifixion could serve as an example to the people.
I took some measurements at the crucifiction site as well, approaching from the cross-holes Ron Wyatt dicovered. When approaching from Herod’s Gate (in the east), the crucifiction site was at about the same level. But measuring from the north gate the crucifiction site is very much lower than street level, and is in fact in a valley. The crucifiction site is on a hill. So depending on what side you approached it from, the crucifiction site was either at street level or on a hill, making it easier to access it from the east side (see drawing on next page). They were in a hurry that day and had planned for all three to be dead by sundown, and so taking the easiest route would be most logical.
The Ark had been removed from the temple over 600 years earlier because of Israel’s sin. God allowed the temple to be destroyed because of their sin and rebellion against Him. The Ark, and with it God’s presence, was taken from them. Now Yeshua, also because of their sin, might well have been taken the same path. The King of the Ark walking approximately the same route above which His throne was once taken – and led to the exact same spot the Ark was – the exact spot where He made atonement, reuniting man with Himself and the Father. Paying the penalty, meeting the demands of the law, His law, written in the Ark below. Restoring life, confirming His Kingship, confirming a new and everlasting covenant to all mankind, and bringing righteousness even to the heathen. The place He was mocked, sentenced to death, and redeemed His people, resting the Sabbath in the grave and resurrected on the day of the first fruits, and all on the very mount God had chosen for it. The mountain that would not only reveal God’s law and place of reign, but also His righteousness and gift of salvation to all nations. Golgotha is said to be the highest peak of Mount Moriah, and it is said to keep rising a little every year. So if it happened the way I suggested here, the ark never left the mount God had chosen, and Christ was indeed crucified on the mountain prophesied He would die on. So if you believe the Bible, the crucifixion and mockery of Christ would be on the same mountain as the law. It all happened at the cross, and on God’s holy mountain, and Ron Wyatt’s discovery fits perfectly with the mission of the Messiah, “…yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” (Psalm 2:6). It was indeed when Christ died on the cross He established His kingdom. “Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.” (Psalm 14:7). “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness
from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:1-4).
As you may well know, the special characteristic of Melchizedek was that he was both priest and king at the same time in Jerusalem, and this is why Yeshua is prophesied to be after the order of Melchizedek; instituted as both Priest and King in Jerusalem. “The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” (Psalm 128:5).
“The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psalm 146:10).
“The LORD that made heaven and earth bless thee out of Zion.” (Psalm 134:3).
“The LORD is exalted; for he dwelleth on high: he hath filled Zion with judgment and righteousness.” (Isaiah 33:5).
“I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” (Isaiah 46:13).
The Messiah could only rule as King if He had made provision for atonement for His people, to buy them back from the clutches of death. For we were all under a death penalty, but Yeshua said, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32). If He didn’t do all of this He would have no one in His earthly kingdom. Thus the Jews failed to see that He was fulfilling the Messianic prophecies when establishing Himself as King, partly because they didn’t
understand the price that had to be paid to entitle them to be children of the kingdom. When Christ hung upon the cross they mocked Him and said, “He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.” (Matthew 27:42). If He had come down from the cross He would still have been the King with the authority to sentence and judge them, as well as the entire Earth, but He could not have offered them a place in His kingdom, and Zion would not have brought forth salvation. “Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 24:23 & Isaiah 28:16).
“Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.” (Psalm 74:2). “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined… He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah” (Psalm 50:2-6). Could God’s work be fulfilled on the northern section of the mount that had been cut off from the rest of the mountain? In the next chapter we will look at certain Scriptures that reveal why it happened outside the city walls, on the part of the mountain which was cut off.
Author: admin
Recent Comments