Why did Christ blood have to go upon the earthly ark?

Did Jesus sprinkle the earthly Ark, did He sprinkle the heavenly? Why would He sprinkle one or the other?
Dive into the “law and the prophets” explaining the discovery of Christ blood upon the earthly Ark. Come, let us reason!

Is it Biblical? Is it in harmony with the Torah (the law), Was it prophecised ?


LAW CONCERNING THE SACRIFICE:

I Leviticus chapter 17 we are told the following law concerning the sacrifice:

“What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD.” (Lev. 17:3-5)

What we learn here is that for a sacrifice to be approved as a sacrifice by God, it had to be done in front of the Lord’s tabernacle. It could not be sacrificed independently from the Tabernacle. If Christ were to die out by the field, or mountain, or in anywhere away from the sanctuary, according to this statement in the law, the sacrifice would not be accepted and the blood would not work as atonement but would instead condemn the man. Meaning if Christ had to fulfill this He had to die by the Sanctuary or else the blood would not serve us but actually the blood would accuse us. If we believe Christ had to fulfill this requirement as our sacrifice it should be a scary thought that the sanctuary was not present where Christ was crucified.In fact, all sin offerings, as well as burnt offerings and peace offerings had to take place by the sanctuary. This was because the law that had been violated was inside the sanctuary and was to “witness” that the sin had been paid for.So we will ask the following question. Is it Biblical that Christ sacrifice for mankind would take place at a place were the sanctuary items, including the law of God, was?Whether He did or didn’t we cannot argue that it is a Biblical principle. We cannot argue that it is “to the law”. Especially when a sacrifice made outside the setting of the sanctuary wasn’t accepted as a legal atonement.What argument can you say against? You can say Christ died before the heavenly sanctuary and not the earthly. Or you can say the law did not apply to Christ sacrifice. But if you say the latter you cannot say your argument is «to the law» can you?What is the argument for Christ fulfilling it?Murder and sacrifice are not the same in the Bible, this is why certain criteria have to be fulfilled. We are not saved by Christ being MURDERED, we are saved by Him presenting Himself as a sacrifice in a ceremonial way.Jesus was the fulfillment of all the sacrificial animals.The veil in the temple didn’t tear until Christ died and it represented the end of the earthly sanctuary.

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent” (Mat 27:50-51)

Did it perhaps represent that the way to the Most Holy in the earthly sanctuary had been revealed? When the veil rent they saw no Ark inside the Most Holy, but at the same time the rocks were rent underneath Christ cross and the Ark was revealed there instead. God, because of the disobedience of the Jews foretelling the events, had taken the original temple furniture from them and hid them where they would eventually kill Jesus so that the law could be fulfilled. It is an interesting thought at least, is it not? If we think that it was enough for Christ to have died in front of a heavenly sanctuary we need to take into consideration that you believing that, it even being the case, is not evidence that Christ didn’t also die in front of the earthly. One idea doesn’t necessarily do away with another. There is room for both in scripture, and there should be room for both in our hearts. Again, we must not place limitations on God based on our private interpretation. But you need not receive this argument, but I have more. A lot more. So stay with me a little longer.

THE BLOOD

The next important detail from the law is that the blood COULD NOT BE PLACED wherever.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you 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)

Even though, at certain times, the blood was taken into the sanctuary, the rest could NOT just be wasted somewhere random. There were specific laws tied to what they did with the rest of the blood. Sometimes it was sprinkled in the direction of the Ark of the Covenant and the Most Holy, sometimes on the horns of the altar of incense and the rest was poured by the foot of the altar of burnt offering. Sometimes it was sprinkled on its horns, sometimes on the side. All was done within the area of the sanctuary. It was not taken outside the area of the sanctuary. Blood was never treated as unimportant. According to «the law and the testimony», the blood of the sacrificial animal had to have a goal tied to its purpose. The reason for this is that according to the law it is THE BLOOD that saved us and that is to be the WITNESS to the sanctuary and law that our penalty has been paid.And so the blood is the witness in the sanctuary service and is the only part of the sacrificial animal that was brought into the sanctuary.And so the sanctuary had to witness the animal sacrificed by it being sacrificed in front of it, and the blood was the only witness to enter the sanctuary itself.We could say that this part of the law didn’t have to be fulfilled by Christ. That Jesus didn’t have to be sacrificed for our sake according to the LAW (Torah) and the prophets.Or we can say that the foot of the cross is a ‘good enough’ replacement for the altar of burnt offering. Yes, we could say that. But how can it then be possible that the blood of the sacrificial animals was treated with more care then the blood of Christ?Is it Biblical that the blood would be taken through the foot of the cross and towards the sanctuary items? It certainly is Biblical.But if you are not convinced we will go on to even stronger arguments than these.But one thing you have to agree with when reading these requirements of the law is that the discovery of Ron Wyatt is at least closer to these specific laws than those who argue against it and say Christ did not have to meet these requirements, right?

A prophet like Moses

Before we are going to look at the Day of Atonement we will look at the confirmation of the Covenant. The law witness:

“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deu 18:15)

A prophet like Moses? What was Moses assignment as a prophet? Let’s have a look:

•To lead the people out of captivity.
•To teach the people Gods laws.
•To be a mediator and confirm a covenant between God and the people.
•Introduce and lead the construction of the Sanctuary and the service there.
•Anoint the priests and the sanctuary.

We are told that for a High Priest to even be able to represent God’s people in the sanctuary, a covenant between God and the people had to be confirmed. We know from the book of Hebrews that Christ is our High Priest and have gone into the sanctuary in heaven to work for us there. But the law, the Torah says that a covenant MUST be confirmed before this can take place. And please notice, it is not me making this comparison between Moses confirming the old covenant and Christ confirmation of the new covenant. It is the Bible itself that compares the two events by making them types and anti-types. In the book of Hebrews chapter 9, Paul compares the two covenants. The same Paul writes another place that there are new promises in the new covenant and a new mediator. We are not told of any other changes.In order to confirm a covenant, Moses had to be a mediator between God and the people. So let us compare Moses and Jesus, the type and the anti-type.
1. MOSES; The promise given: “And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee forever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.” (Exo 19:7-9)
1. JESUS; Jesus preached the law but also the promise of salvation:”If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever” (Joh 14:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16) In fact, Jesus identified what laws He were to confirm:”Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matt.5,17)

2. MOSES: The law is given verbally to the people. (Exo.19,18)
2. JESUS: As we know Jesus was educating people in God’s law through His mission work for 3,5 years. He taught them to deny sin and choose obedience to God. The prophecies concerning the Messiah said He would do this. Jesus was a living witness, the law in flesh. In addition He also said He came to confirm the law.

3. MOSES: The Law was written down.The mediator Moses wrote the laws down in a book along with the promises. And so the book contained both the law and the promise.
3. JESUS: Did He ever write down the law physically? We are told no one has ever seen God. And so the Person Moses saw on Mount Sinai and who wrote then ten commandments with His own finger was none other than JESUS. Jesus Himself claimed to be “I AM” the one Moses was interacting with. So if Jesus told the truth about being “I AM” or Jehovah, the Ten Commandments were written with the handwriting of Christ. And so Christ wrote the law.

4. MOSES. Moses as the mediator builds an altar by the foot of the mountain.
4. JESUS. Did Jesus make an altar by the foot of a mountain? You decide after we have looked at the rest.

5. MOSES. Moses erected 12 pillars one for each tribe of Israel. (Exo. 24:4)
5. JESUS. Did Jesus erect 12 pillars? Jesus chose 12 disciples to be the foundation for the spreading of the gospel and Gods covenant with man. They were witnesses and ‘stones’ of the memorial of the new covenant. (Rev. 21:14)

6. MOSES: 70 chosen. God chose 70 people of the eldest to see Him and be witnesses for the rest of the people.(Exo.24:9-10)
6. JESUS: 70 chosen. Jesus also chose 70 messengers that He instructed, and they were to be witnesses of Him to all of Israel. “the Lord appointed other seventy also..” (Matt.18,22, Se also Luke 10:17)

7. MOSES: FREE WILLThey were asked if they wanted to be part of the covenant by their own choice.
7. JESUS. I don’t think I need to provide all the scriptures saying we enter into a covenant with Christ freely. It’s our decision.

8. MOSES:
8. JESUS:Yes, let’s just skip point 8 for now and go straight on to point 9.

9. MOSES: sprinkled blood upon the people as a sign they were a part of the covenant.“And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exo 24:8)
9. JESUS: I think you already have recognized the parallel and similar wording. But let’s quote Jesus anyway: “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt.26,27-28) Jesus told them to partake in the covenant by drinking the symbol of His blood. It’s clear now that Jesus is fulfilling the confirmation of the new covenant. But as in the old days, Jesus could not sprinkle His physical blood physically on every human being from that time and until our day. And so He presented this symbol.But the wording is similar. Both say “the blood of the covenant/testimony” (Covenant and testimony is the same word in the original Biblical transcripts in the New Testament) We see that those things Moses had to do as a mediator between the people and God BEFORE they could set up the sanctuary and the sanctuary service, a covenant HAD TO BE CONFIRMED.But I did skip a part. I skipped the very part that Paul uses to compare the two events, the very part Paul uses as type and anti-type. And it’s the exact same part everybody else skips as well.

8. MOSES & JESUS: Blood and water had to be sprinkled upon the content or the book of the Covenant, the law. “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” (Heb.9,19-20) Notice that there were to be given a promise, that the law had to be preached verbally, that it had to be written down and that blood and water were to confirm the covenant by it being sprinkled upon the BOOK OF THE COVENANT. Are you starting to see the resemblance between Moses and Jesus? What was the Ark called? The Ark of the COVENANT. Why is it called that? It wasn’t that Ark Moses confirmed the covenant on. Because it contains God’s law and the mercy seat represented Gods salvation (promise of a substitute), it was called the Ark of the Covenant. The two elements, the two pieces of the Ark were placed together and represented God’s covenant with mankind.The Bible (the law) tells us Moses was prophesying about the mission of Christ. Paul tells us that Jesus was the mediator like Moses was, only for the new covenant. Paul makes the reference that the blood and water had to be sprinkled upon the Covenant and the promise.So did Jesus not have to fulfill this part? Is this another part of «the law and the testimony» He could skip? The Bible says: “But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.” (Joh 19:33-35) This could be a double prophecy as well. That a future witness of the water and blood is a true witness as well as John. Blood and water were mixed together only two times in the law in connection with a sacrifice. One of these was when the covenant was to be confirmed, the covenant itself had to be sprinkled with blood and water. And the other time was when they sacrificed a bird in connection with a cleansing ritual.When we see that Jesus sacrificed Himself at the cross and that blood and water came out of His side the law points to one event. The fulfillment of the confirmation of the covenant.What had Jesus said only the night before His blood and water poured out of His side? He said it was the blood of the covenant right? So if we have something against the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant with Christ blood upon it,at least in all fairness we have to ask ourselves, did Jesus fulfill the law and the prophets on this specific point? Or did He skip the important part, the very part that made the covenant valid and a testimony? We can tear out this part of Christ mission and say His blood needed not to be sprinkled on the Covenant. The covenant was symbolic and Christ blood was just wasted upon the ground. We can say that, but in all fairness, at least be honest and admit that this discovery at least has support from «the law and the testimony»? The point I am making is that it’s in order to reject the discovery we have to take away from the law and the testimony, but we don’t have to do this if we accept it. The covenant just wasn’t confirmed without this main part, and if a covenant wasn’t confirmed the sanctuary service couldn’t be established for the sake of man. We have to ask the question; does the blood ending upon the mercy seat take away the pillar of the heavenly sanctuary or does it actually compliment it? Is it a threat to the service Christ in the sanctuary in heaven, or the means to that very service. Remember this discovery DOES NOT SAY Jesus entered the chamber with The Ark of the Covenant, it just says His blood was sprinkled towards it and to it from a distance. But some may want to make everything into symbols. But in the Bible, the both the physical and the symbolic are always both present. Some say that in the new covenant EVERYTHING was symbolic. Walter Veith, a known pastor and lay-worker said it to my very face. Then I ask, was the other elements symbolic? Did Jesus die symbolically? Where the water and blood coming out of His side symbolically or did It actually physically come from His side? It was the Old Testament that was symbolic, the New Covenant was a real deal. If the blood and the water is physical there is no need to think the covenant it was supposed to sprinkle was symbolic. No matter what we choose to believe. We at least have to admit that it can be a possibility and that the Bible doesn’t go against it. At least that. Is it Biblical that the blood and water were sprinkled towards the Covenant itself? It is at least a biblical idea. But wait, there is more we need to look at. Because all the rituals and sacrificial animals pointed to the mission of Christ as well. Thus, the law has even more to give us. And the most interesting truth appear when we blend all the symbols of Christ together. Let’s have a look at the day of atonement.

THE DAY OF ATONEMENT:

The time prophecy of 2300 mornings and evenings is found in the book of Daniel and it says that after this time period “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (Dan.8,14)The expression to ‘cleanse the sanctuary’ is, of course, from the law. It refers to when the High Priest once every year, on the Day of Atonement, went into the Sanctuary and the Most Holy to cleanse it. On this day blood was taken and sprinkled before and upon the Ark of the

Covenant. 2300 days is believed to be prophetic time and therefore these days represent years. (Num 14:34, Eze 4:5-6, Dan 9:24-27) The angel doesn’t tell Daniel when this time-period begins, and as a result Daniel gets very troubled. After praying and crying to God for Israel’s deliverance, as he is worrying for his own people, the angel returns to Daniel and says: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city” (Dan 9,24) The word determined is châthak and literally means that 70 weeks are “cut off”, but cut off what? That would most likely be the last time-prophecy that Daniel didn’t receive an explanation on. Now, although God didn’t give the start date of the 2300 days, it gives the start point of the 70 weeks that was cut off from that same period. Hence, if they have the same starting point, where the first ends after 70 weeks, and the other after 2300.

And so many million Christians today believe that just like Jesus at His first coming fulfilled the feast of Passover (not fulfilling it every year but that once). Christ would after the 2300 mornings and evenings fulfill the cleansing of the sanctuary, the Day of Atonement. On that day those who had not truly repented was to be separated from Israel. And so it’s viewed as an investigative judgment that needs to take place before Christ can return. There not being any sanctuary on earth anymore, it’s assumed that the scripture was talking about the sanctuary in heaven, the one that Paul talks about in the book of Hebrews explaining that Christ is our High Priest there. In the book of Revelation we can see the sanctuary items, the candlestick, the altar of incense, and even the Ark of the Covenant in a heavenly setting. And so the Bible confirms in its last book that Jesus is moving through the stages of the heavenly sanctuary ending with the Ark of the Covenant.Paul explains in Hebrew chapter 8 that these items are not the earthly ones, but the ones the earthly was made after the pattern of. That means there was one earthly sanctuary made as a copy of the heavenly.

When Ron’s discovery said the blood went down on the earthly ark in 31 AD, many felt it weakened Christ representing us in the sanctuary in heaven. For why would Jesus need to sprinkle the heavenly Ark with His blood if He had already sprinkled the other Ark, Gods earthly throne down here? Not being able, or having room for both, they decided to reject Ron’s discovery. Some feel they can reject the heavenly cleansing. But what if the Bible has room for both? Did not Jesus, when He was here on earth, start His ministry by cleansing the temple? (Mat. 21:12) And did He not at the end of His ministry, cleanse His temple? (Mar 11:15) So does that mean there are TWO Days of ATONEMENT? Well, it doesn’t have to be. In other double prophecies found in the Bible, we see that if a topic is related in nature they are blended together inside the same time prophecy.

Every idea we have added to our understanding of the DAY OF ATONEMENT that is not established by the Bible has to go. Or we will not understand the light sent to us from Golgotha.One such idea that we need to let go of is that EVERYTHING that happened on the Day of Atonement had to happen in heaven at one specific time.
That is just not true. The only part that had to happen according to the 2300 day prophecy is that the sanctuary would be cleansed. That’s what the prophecy says. As mentioned before. The events happening on the Day of Atonement stretches from the year 31 AD and until Christ has left the Most Holy Place in heaven. Another misconception we need to let go, is that if Christ takes His blood on the mercy seat when He was cleansing the sanctuary in heaven it was forbidden for Him to place His blood on any other Ark before this time period. One thing doesn’t have to do away another. That’s limitations the Bible doesn’t give, it’s our own personal limitation. We don’t make the rules, God does. So let’s make Him define the rules.

Let’s look if there is a double prophecy in the Day of Atonement. First of all, we are told that Jesus was only to die once. So He didn’t have to die all over again to fulfill the cleansing ritual in heaven. The blood of 31 AD is, therefore, the same blood used on the Day of Atonement. I think we all agree on that. Let’s look at the act called the cleansing of the sanctuary:

“And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering …present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle …And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. …Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” (From different verses in Leviticus 16)

And so although the blood taken into the Most holy represents part of the service of the cleansing of the sanctuary that is believed to have happened in heaven, we all agree the blood was shed when Christ died. But we have almost forgotten about something quite important. The priest could not perform the cleansing of the Sanctuary just like that could he? He had to do something first. Not only did a covenant have to be established and confirmed before the High Priest could represent us in a sanctuary (A covenant reflecting the covenant He would minister before in heaven), BUT for a High-Priest to be able to go into the Most Holy Place and cleanse the sanctuary he had to do something else important. For a long time, we have focused on Christ in the sanctuary, Christ in the most holy, but little attention has been given to what had to happen for Jesus to be able to perform these same assignments. The preparation for the cleansing of the sanctuary. What had to happen is described in the Day of Atonement. And many will argue that Jesus didn’t have to this part of the prophecy either, but I will show you why He actually had to.

PRIEST AND SACRIFICE IN ONE

The ‘secret’ to understanding these things is in one important revelation. That Jesus is a combination of a priest and the sacrificial animal, AT THE SAME TIME. When we look at the type in the old sanctuary service we see the PRIEST and SACRIFICE being divided into two separate symbols. And so we either compare Jesus with the High Priest or we compare Him to the sacrificial animal but we forget to see what happens when we blend the two into one to understand what the sum of Christ mission is.What happens when the PRIEST becomes the SACRIFICE? Here is the secret to Ron’s Ark discovery unfolded. And I will explain how and why. When the priestly assignment is mixed with that of the sacrificial animal we get a CONFLICT that’s not easily spotted in the Sanctuary service unless we mix the two. A priest had to be holy, have clean clothes and be clean. He could only take “our sins” into the sanctuary when the animal was dead, with the blood as a witness. No sacrificial animal still alive could walk into the Holy place. The sacrifice was either represented by the meat or the blood, but it was necessary that it was dead.But in the case of the plan of salvation, Jesus also had to be the sacrifice. So why is this a cause of conflict? Because when the sin was pressed upon the sacrificial animal that animal now became the target of the judgment and the one under condemnation of the law. The moment the sacrifice had the sin placed upon it’s head, it was under the curse.It had no access to the sanctuary in a living state. Jesus as the living sacrifice could not go into the sanctuary in heaven carrying our sins upon Him without atoning for them. Even though Jesus was without sin Himself (so was the animal that had to be without spot and blemish). The sacrificial animal was a substitute, the animal itself had to die for a sin it hadn’t committed itself.Jesus was without sin, but when OUR SIN was placed upon Him He became a curse for our sake. I don’t think we can still comprehend fully how serious that is. Jesus said when He hung upon the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mat 27:46) At that horrid moment when all our sins were placed upon Him, directing the law for Him to take the punishment for our crimes, He uttered those words. For a moment OUR SINS separated Him from the Father. Jesus could not be our High Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary in that state, with our sins upon Him. Jesus while being the living sin-bearer at the cross had no access to the sanctuary. The only way to become our Priest in heaven He had to bring blood, evidence of the sin being paid for by blood, with Him. He could go to God without doing this, as He was without sin Himself. But then He couldn’t be our High Priest because He had no blood. And like that He could save Himself, but He could not save us.Jesus now are to be sacrificed for our sins, they are placed upon Him like the sins were pressed on the head of the sacrificial animal. It’s brutal. Paul says:

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Col 5:21)
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13)

What does Isaiah say of the event?

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isa 53:3-5).

“It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen. In taking our nature, the Savior has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16). He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature.” (Desire of Ages, p.25)
I feel I have to explain the obvious in order to make sure you understand the next thing I am going to say. Jesus took our sins upon Him on the cross. To do this, Jesus also became part of the human family FOREVER.So let’s get back to our dilemma. Because Jesus was BOTH the sacrificial animal who had our sins pressed upon it AND the priest at the same time, we have to re-examine some things that we have missed out on regarding the Day of Atonement.We have to blend together the prophecy of the sacrifice with the prophecy of the priest. Because the Priest HAD TO BE CLEAN OF ALL SIN to represent us in the sanctuary and in the Most Holy Place. He was not to have sin that was not ATONED FOR pressed upon him. This MEANS that Jesus had to die to separate the sin that He was now carrying on earth from Himself. Only then could He appear as a cleansed Priest and carry the blood into the Sanctuary in heaven. In short: He could NOT enter the sanctuary with sin that was not ATONED FOR. We also see this represented with the cleansing basin standing right outside the Holy Place. The Priest had to cleanse himself before entering the Holy Place. If we understand this principle, then the symbols seen in the Day of Atonement can give us a new and fuller meaning.So under the Day of Atonement, the sanctuary was to be cleansed because of the sins that had been carried in there by the blood (the blood represented the sin that was atoned for). All atoned sin was registered in the sanctuary. The High Priest was to go into the Most Holy place and sprinkle some of the blood on the mercy seat and in front of it and then on the altar of incense as a ritual to cleanse the sanctuary.

“Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil… and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat” (Lev.16,15)

Let’s say this happened in heaven after the 2300 mornings and evenings, not the killing of the goat but the blood part taken into the most holy place. BEFORE the Priest could do this, before He could cleanse the sanctuary and sprinkle the blood on the Ark in the Most Holy Place HE HAD TO… sprinkle the blood on the Ark! That is right, before he could sprinkle blood on the Ark he had to FIRST sprinkle the blood upon the Ark. According to the witness of the Day of Atonement, blood had to be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat TWICE. Two times the High Priest had to go into the Most Holy Place with blood. The first time the Priest did it was to prepare Himself to sprinkle to cleanse the sanctuary, he had to sprinkle the Ark for HIMSELF and HIS HOUSE. This worked as a permit to be able to go in and sprinkle it the second time.The first time is usually ignored or abolished, for, as they say, Jesus didn’t have any personal sin and therefore He didn’t have to sacrifice for His own sake. And because they think this can only be required if the Priest had personal sin (assumption) they miss out of an important part that was prophesied of the plan of salvation. If this was just to make sure the Priest didn’t have personal sin then God could have had him sacrifice his ordained sacrifice before the events of the day of atonement. Or before the ritual of the cleansing of the sanctuary. That is how it normally was done. It’s true Jesus NEVER had to sacrifice for His own sins as He had never sinned. But the sanctuary service is a prophecy of Christ work for us. Jesus was both the sacrifice AND the High Priest. The sacrifice, unlike the Priest, had the sin placed upon it. When the sacrifice and the priest is blended together the Priest has to first cleanse Himself from the sin placed upon Him in order to represent us during the investigative judgment, under the cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven. The High Priest was not permitted to be tainted with sin personally. He could only carry our sin into the sanctuary by the blood. And the only way for the High Priest to be cleansed to perform that service was to first sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. Bear with me as we will look into more details.

“And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, …And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.” (Lev 16:11&14)

Did Jesus have a house tainted with sin He had to atone for before going to the heavenly sanctuary? Or could He skip this part being human by flesh and spiritually belonging to heaven? Didn’t Jesus have to sprinkle the Ark the first time? Or is all that took place during the Day of Atonement prophetic of Christ mission for us? Who is His house? If the High Priest had to sprinkle on behalf of His house before being able to take part in the cleansing of the sanctuary, it’s worth finding out if the Bible tells us who Christ’ house is. Put short, Jesus is the second Adam, He took upon Himself human flesh and became ONE OF US so He could represent us. Jesus became part of the human family. We don’t have to guess who the family of the High Priest is, because the Bible clearly tells us:

“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” (Heb 3:6)

Further we are told:

“For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” (Heb 2:11-12)

The Bible tells us that after Jesus chose to come in human flesh we became His house. We are the house of the High Priest because He came as a man, like one of us, so He could represent us.Was the house of the High Priest Jesus sinners? Yes. Was Jesus a sinner? No. Did He take our sins upon Himself by also being the sacrificial substitute? Yes. Was sin then also laying upon Jesus? So did Jesus have to sprinkle the Ark the first time? You have to decide based upon these scriptures.As a priest in the sanctuary, He could not be the sin-bearer. Don’t misunderstand. The priest bore the sin into the sanctuary but he always carried it in atoned for. The animal had to have been dead, the sin atoned for before he could enter.In order to represent us in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus had to first sprinkle the Ark on our behalf and to cleanse Himself from the sin that He had taken upon Himself as the sacrificial animal. At least this is how it happened in the role play in the old sanctuary service.The Ark had to be sprinkled twice. Once for the priest and his house (Jesus didn’t HAVE TO as a priest BUT AS THE SACRIFICE, and he had to do it for His house that He had identified with). There is only one scripture some might use to argue. Let’s look at it straight away.

“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then forthe people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.” (Heb 7:25-28)

Does this scripture say Jesus didn’t have to be cleansed from our sins and the sins of His house? Paul is emphasizing that Jesus was perfect, He was without His own sins, that He was undefiled by sin. And he is talking about Christ priestly service in heaven, where we don’t have to worry about Jesus failing us like the priests here on earth did. He, unlike the earthly priests, never committed sins.Who would you feel more secure about representing you to a judge? One who had committed sins like yourself, or one who had not committed it? And this Paul’s point. The other point he is making is that Jesus only had to die once, not twice. That one time covered all the need. And this is because He only had to die for the sin placed upon Him and not for His own sins. The scripture doesn’t say Jesus didn’t fulfill the symbols of the priestly sacrifice, it says: «for this he did once». He didn’t have to separate the events.The answer, again, is found in the sanctuary system. The lamb/sacrificial animal which the sins were pressed upon had to be without blemish. You cannot be a substitute if you yourself are under condemnation. And so if Jesus was under condemnation for His own sins He could not have OUR sins placed upon Him.And so because Jesus was the SPOTLESS lamb, undefiled by sin and holy, He could take our sins upon Himself.

Again, it’s because Jesus is both the High Priest and the sacrificial animal at the same time. Christ has to fulfill both.What is the assumption that we can add to this scripture making Christ free from sprinkling the Ark the first time? The first assumption is that it says Jesus didn’t have to fulfill both symbols, it actually just says He could do it at the same time. The second assumption is that the verse says Jesus was NEVER defiled by sin. That this verse means never, and not just that He personally never defiled Himself by sinning so He could represent us.Does other scripture back up the idea that Jesus wasn’t defiled by sin when He took ours upon Himself? Gal 3:13, 2Co 5:21, Isa 53:10 say He was.

“All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.” (Isaiah 53:6) “Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.” (Ephesians 5:2)
“Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:28)

So, the conclusion here has to be, that Paul does not refute that Christ need to fulfill the first part of the sprinkling but that He didn’t have to do it for His own sins. He could not be our sacrificial animal or priest if He had His own sins He needed to atone for.Christ was that SPOTLESS LAMB. And for this reason alone Jesus is a different High Priest, He is a holy pure one.But at the same time the Bible does tell us that although He was never defiled nor were a sinner. He, at one specific point in time, carried our sins upon Himself and let the penalty fall on Him. Meaning at that point in time, still not defiled by any personal sin, but with ours, He needed to die to cleanse the sin He was carrying for us.At the same time, the holy Priest Jesus who had never committed His own sin, could as the sacrifice now carrying all our sins, atone the sin as both Priest and sacrifice at the same time.So what we understand from Paul is that Jesus could not do this in “ONE TAKE” if He had a personal sin. A priest could never serve the people and himself at the same time, this was because of his own sins. He had to first atone for his own before he could bring forth the sacrificial animals for the sake of the people.With Jesus it was different. He was only dealing with our sins He could be the spotless High Priest and the sacrificial animal with our sins on it AT THE SAME TIME. Meaning He only had to die once. He didn’t have to clean Himself before He could bring salvation to us. This is the main point of the verses we read. That Jesus had not committed any sins and that because of that He only had to die once. That is all He’s saying. We cannot interpret things into the verse that contradict other Bible verses. Of course, Jesus got defiled by our sins when He took it upon Himself, or else He wouldn’t be made a curse who had to die for the very same sins. But although His earthly body had been prepared to be a sacrifice with sin placed upon it, His soul was pure and holy. The true identity of Jesus was never defiled by sin as He was perfectly innocent. His mind was never corrupted, His thoughts never dwelt on sins. He just laid His body down as a sacrifice that the sin could be placed upon so He could die a substitute death. But this never changed His character. He wasn’t defined in that way. But our sins did cover Him and for a moment He was under condemnation, probably feeling the frightful separation from His father.So these verses are not put there to reject the first sprinkling. Rather they prevent anyone from claiming Jesus sprinkled the Ark the first time BECAUSE He had personally sinned. That he had to because of His own sin.And when the discovery of the blood on the Mercy Seat comes out to the great public, these verses are there to prevent anyone from saying the first sprinkling had anything to do with Christ not being perfect Himself.It was our sins alone that made it necessary for Him to die and sprinkle the Ark. It was OUR SINS that got Him under the curse, not His own.Jesus cleansed us from our sins by placing them upon Himself, but he also cleaned Himself from the sins placed upon Him. So that He could bring the sin atoned for by His blood to the sanctuary and present it before God’s throne.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18)
“You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.” (1 John 3:5)
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10)
“He committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:22–24)
“Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it will not be accepted for you.» (Leviticus 22:20)

In order to understand this discovery, we need to blend the High Priest role with the role of the sacrificial substitute. If we don’t do that, we won’t understand it in its proper context. We won’t understand why Jesus needed to be cleansed from the sins placed upon Him.

«Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?» (Heb 10:29)

He was “sanctified” by the blood of the covenant. Why would He need to be sanctified by His own blood when He was already clean? Let’s look at the word “sanctified”
hag-ee-ad’-zo From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: – hallow, be holy, sanctify.
This scripture strengthens Leviticus 16’s first sprinkling. For we know Christ was already holy and pure, fit to be our High Priest even before He made the sacrifice. And so what had happened in the time between to make Him suddenly be purified by His own blood? Why would He need to be purified? Again, because at the cross, His earthly body was weighed down with our sins. The same body He rose with and that He brought to heaven. He not only cleansed us from our sins, He cleansed Himself at the same time by separating the sin not only from us, but by death also separating the sin from Himself as a person.

Why the resurrection could take place

When Jesus died, and took our penalty as our substitute, there is nothing that would indicate a resurrection. None of the substitute animals rose from the dead after being slaughtered. The sin was transferred to a substitute and the substitute was killed instead of the sinner, and that was it. A priest then carried the blood before the throne of God.So why did Jesus rise from the dead? Isn’t that ‘cheating’? It was because Jesus Himself had not sinned personally He could resurrect. Again, Jesus could not have resurrected if He had sin that was not atoned for placed upon him. And so Jesus could ONLY resurrect if the sin placed upon Him had been separated from Him as a person.He could not resurrect as a sin-bearer, as a sacrificial animal. And so the priest and the sacrifice was blended at the cross, yet it was only the priest that resurrected. By the blood on the cross and His death, Jesus separated the two -the two parted ways- the sacrificial ‘animal’ and the priest. And only the priest resurrected with the blood of the sacrifice in His hand to show the Father.If the priest had been a sinner, the sacrificial substitute and the priest both had to atone, and the two could not separate after death and there could be no resurrection. But because the priest in the case with Christ had no private sin, He split the two, the substitute and the priest, after His death. Leaving the priest to pick up the blood of His own sacrifice. First He blended the two, then He separated the two.

IF He did

If Christ did sprinkle the Mercy Seat the first time, did both have to happen in heaven or at the same time? If Jesus had to have fulfilled it the first time the type shows us it HAD to have happened on the cross. The first time it is tied to His house here on earth, His earthly family, it’s tied to a moment when He’s bearing our sins. In heaven, Christ is pure and not tainted with any of our sins. Only here on earth at the cross did He carry our sins and that was at the cross. If this part were to be fulfilled it was not possible for it to be fulfilled any other time. Only ONE TIME ALONE was he both sacrifice and High Priest where He needed to cleanse the sin off of Himself. It never happened again. This part could not happen in heaven for here Jesus is not a sin-bearer but just a priest carrying the result of His sacrifice. In heaven this part is unnecessary. And remember not all that took place on the day of Atonement were to happen in heaven. Jesus only had to die once. All the sacrifices that were made on the day of atonement happened on the cross. Jesus did not have to die over and over again. But even if we should be of the opinion that Jesus didn’t have to die to cleanse Himself and ‘His house’ from the sin placed upon Him, or we don’t even think the house of the High Priest actually represented us. Even if that is our reasoning, we are still left with these questions: Is it a Biblical idea that the sprinkling of the Ark of the Covenant happened two times? Is it a Biblical idea that the Ark had to be sprinkled to prepare the priest and his house, in order for the Ark to be sprinkled during the cleansing of the sanctuary? Did Jesus need to be separated from the sin placed upon Him before entering heaven? The answer has to be yes. But, of course we can just take it out and explain it away. Seriously, we can if we want to. In the sanctuary service, there was a cleansing basin the priest had to use before he could enter the Tabernacle. Our High Priest is Holy, does that mean the cleansing basin only represented the earthly sanctuary and not the mission of Christ? Was it not perfectly representative of Christ’ stations as our High Priest? Or did it contain symbolism? Did our Jesus have to cleanse away the sin He had taken upon Himself before entering the Sanctuary in heaven? You decide what you want to believe.To many it’s such terrible thought that they would rather dismiss the entire thing happening. They are offended by the thought of our sins defiling Christ. Was our disgusting sins really upon Him in such a way that He was sentenced to death? It was necessary for Him to remove them to be accepted by the Father as High Priest? Our sins really separated Him from the Father? The thought that Jesus needed to cleanse away the sins He had taken upon Himself in order to enter the Sanctuary in heaven offended even John the Baptist. When Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized, John first denies to baptize Jesus:

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him,saying, I have to need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.» (Mat 3:13-17)

Why did God give this acknowledgment after the baptism? In reality, Jesus was just as clean as before? It is because baptism is a symbolic act. It doesn’t really cleanse anyone. John didn’t understand the plan of salvation fully as he viewed baptism as an admission of sin, an act of cleansing. This is why he was first offended when Jesus asked to be baptized. But Jesus knew that the baptism represented His death and resurrection. And the acknowledgment that proceeded was a foretaste of the acceptance Jesus would get from the Father after His resurrection. You remember Jesus saying to Mary not to touch her until He had been with the Father and had His sacrifice approved? Jesus had to partake in the death and resurrection in order to be anointed to His service after having had the sin placed upon Himself. It was the sin that was placed upon Him that made Him the subject of the death penalty. Besides that, He needed not to die, He was already clean.Jesus Himself was cleansed from the sins He bore on our behalf by dying while He was carrying it. It was Jesus, the victim with our sins upon Him, that died. But it was the innocent Christ that rose up from the grave and made sure His sacrifice was approved so He could be a spokesperson for the human family.As an interesting side-thought it is worth noting that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river. That would be the same place the Ark once stood in the middle of the river while the river opened up. The Ark stood on the river bed close by where Christ was to prophesy His death and resurrection by His baptism. Again we can see the Ark and the sacrifice of Christ blending together symbolically

BIBLE PROPHECIES THE TWO SPRINKLINGS

(Ups: We do not agree that the last week of the 70 weeks is to be separated and placed in the end time. This interpretation shows the 70 weeks as one continues time prophecy)
But, you can say. If the Ark really were to be sprinkled twice why wasn’t the prophets told about it so they could witness together with the law? Should not the prophets have forewarned it? Well, what if they did? What if they got an accurate prophecy? Let’s first get an overview. The time aspect of the Day of Atonement is divided. The sacrifice that took place on this day was not to take place in heaven. The sacrifice was made at the cross.
When it comes to the cleansing of the sanctuary we are given a time. The 2300 mornings and evenings tells us when the sanctuary was to be cleansed and therefore the Ark in heaven being sprinkled. So the prophet prophesies at least of this last sprinkling and gives us the time for it.The first, as we have studied, may have represented the cleansing of the Priest and His house.Let’s place them in sequence.
1. Cleansing of the Priest and His house
2. Cleansing of the Sanctuary – 2300 years.
I want to suggest that what we can see here is a double prophecy tied to two different Arks. One on earth and the other in heaven. For we know Jesus did not fulfill all the symbols tied to the first ark in heaven.Does it say the Ark would be sprinkled after the 2300 years in the book of Daniel? No, it doesn’t actually say that. What it does say is only that the sanctuary would be cleansed. But we understand it this way because we know from the law that this is what happened when the sanctuary was cleansed. And so, based on Leviticus 16 and Daniels prophecy, we add them together and say Christ went into the most holy and sprinkled the Ark. But what if Daniel tells us about the first sprinkling as well? And this time, he is actually more direct? Meaning that his prophecy of the first time is more accurately explained than that of the second. If it is, is there any reason for us to accept the first prophecy and not the second? The cleansing of the priest and His house happened, according to the prophecy, here on earth: «Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.» (Dan 9:24) So many christians believe this prophecy is ‘cut off’ from the 2300 years. If so both time prophecies in the same timeline end with the sprinkling of the Most Holy. Both are pointing to a similar event. The one will take place «upon thy holy city» and the other in the heavenly sanctuary. At the end of the 70 weeks the Most Holy is to be anointed, at the end of the 2300 years, the sanctuary is to be cleansed. The same timeline is prophesying both of the sprinkling events.But some say, the 70 weeks is about heaven too, and that the heavenly sanctuary was anointed for service. What does the prophecy say itself? «upon thy people and upon thy holy city» What does that mean? Thy house! The prophecy itself says it’s about the earthly sanctuary and God’s people. Jesus was actually clothed in human flesh and of Jewish decent. He died and gave His sacrifice for us in the «holy city», Jerusalem.The first prophecy is about the Most Holy tied to Jesus as a man here on earth, and the other is tied to the heavenly sanctuary.So does the Bible speak of two sprinklings of the Most Holy, one before the 70 weeks and one after the 2300 years? It does actually. It does mention two most holy places being sprinkled. The first prophecy of the first time is more direct while the second is more vague.And so we do have both the law and the prophets to support such a view. We have the ceremonial law and we have Daniel.

Why would the two events be tied together with a prophetic bond? Because if Christ did not confirm the covenant, the law, and if He did not sprinkle the mercy seat to cleanse Himself and us, He could not perform the priestly service in heaven. If we abolish Christ blood going on to the mercy-seat here on earth we at the same time abolish the priestly service Christ is performing in heaven. So does this theology ruin the cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven or does it, in fact, confirm it. Does it do away Christ as High Priest or does it add to it and establish Him as just that? Does it ruin His ministry or does it confirm it? At best, whether we want to receive this or not, we need to agree on one thing at least. This theory DOES NOT destroy Christ ministry in Heaven. It actually leaves room for both. Claiming this discovery destroy Christ ministry in Heaven is a FALSE statement. Ron, myself and many who have shared this discovery have no problem in believing that the Ark was sprinkled at the cross as well as in heaven. We don’t have problems with dual prophecies, and we don’t have problems with there being more to Christ ministry then the christian pioneers first learned. We have room for both. Don’t make the mistake the Jews did rejecting Christ first coming because they couldn’t see that the prophecies they had on Christ spoke on multiple comings. Don’t limit yourself. At least be open to the possibility.

Why use the word ANOINT, ANOINTING is not necessarily done with BLOOD?

Doesn’t this just contradict it all? Can anointing ever be done with blood? Why does it say «to anoint the most holy»? It’s worth noting that when Aron and his sons were inaugurated as priests blood was used as part of the anointing, and so both blood and anointing oil was present when they were being anointed. By using this word instead of sprinkling, God is helping us to not misunderstand. If it had said «to sprinkle the most holy» this would have signified a termination of a service, an ending. But when it says “to anoint” it indicates that the sprinkling of the Ark the first time is a dedication or the beginning of a work.

«And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.» (Exo. 29:36)

In this scripture, we see that once a sin offering for atonement had been made, the same alter were to be anointed. Meaning you anoint it after bringing the atoning sacrifice. And so anointing was not just used at the inauguration. So what type of anointing is Daniel 9 speaking of? Let’s look again:

«and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.»

Here we see the anointing is done in connection with an act of atonement referring to a sin offering, and not to a dedication of a heavenly sanctuary. Daniel 9 has all the clues we need, it’s done in connection with an atonement in the «holy city» (Jerusalem), and it involved God’s people.But let’s say we reject this. Let’s say we still believe it has to refer to a dedication. Actually, it can still refer to that as well. For instance, a covenant that is confirmed is a dedication, the start of something. The covenant was dedicated at the cross. The priest was dedicated at the cross, for it was there He first brought the means for our salvation, the sacrifice. So by using the word anoint the most holy instead of sprinkling, God might be showing us that this is the beginning of Christ work, but that also the beginning of Christ work involves sprinkling as well as the end. You might remember this principle being used several times in the Bible. As mentioned previously Jesus started His work by cleansing the temple and then He finished His work by cleansing the temple. Jesus cleansed us from sin at the cross, He cleanses the sanctuary from sin at the end. So these are biblical principles. But you can say, and some of you will, that you don’t accept this. That Jesus didn’t have to do this or that it was a symbol of something else. Fine. But give me this, isn’t it at least Biblical for a priest to sprinkle a covenant before starting his service in a sanctuary, or to sprinkle the Ark before cleansing the sanctuary? Is it Biblical to use the word anointed when a sin offering had just been made and the alter needed to be sanctified? Is it a Biblical idea? Give me at least that.

The Day of Atonement, first sprinkling had to take place at the cross?

The first sprinkling can also be tied to the cross rather than Heaven because of additional information given on it. Bear in mind that although God instructs the High Priest to sprinkle the blood of the ox (to cleanse the priest and his house), and the blood of the goat (to cleanse the sanctuary) in the exact same place and same way, one instruction is left out when he were to sprinkle the blood of the goat (heaven). In the first instruction with the blood of the ox it says:

“And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail. And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not» (v.12 & 13)

This instruction is not part of the instructions given regarding the sprinkling of blood of the goats. A lot of people have assumed he would do the same on the other sprinkling, but the Torah, in other instructions, do tend to repeat itself if any actions are to be repeated. You see this clearly in Leviticus 1-4 regarding with the difference sacrifices. Let’s just forget all our assumption for a little bit and think that Aron was only to do this part once and that is the reason God doesn’t say he has to repeat this part. If the Priest only did this with the blood of the ox, and we now speculate if this first sprinkling took place on the cross, how can it fit? Let’s break down the verses. «take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar»

Which alter is this? It’s the alter that was tied to Christ crucifixion, where the animal was slaughtered. What function did the coal have on the alter? It burnt parts of the sacrifice. So the coal was a part of the ritual tied to the body of the sacrificial animal. Only blood was taken into the Holy, but here coal from the alter was brought. The second thing brought before the mercy seat was incense, which Revelation reveal is a symbol of prayer. The purpose of this action is stated: «he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony» And so the priest sprinkled: «And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward» The priest here was not permitted to SEE the mercy-seat when He did this sprinkling. The coal from the alter and the incense covered the mercy-seat. Unlike the High Priest that was dressed in clean clothing were to avoid dying when he did this action, Jesus as our sacrifice had to die. Again this first sprinkling, if interpreted correctly, is tied to the cross where the High Priest could not see the mercy-seat because of the state and position He was in as the sacrifice. In regard to the second sprinkling the high priest is instructed to «do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat» (Lev.16,15) But there is no mention of the high priest having to repeat the details about the coal and incense on the mercy-seat. This could mean that once the Priest had made the sacrifice for Himself and the house and was cleansed, he could enter the most holy and sprinkle the Ark while beholding the Mercy Seat. Jesus is our High Priest in heaven. Pure, cleansed, and holy. He was even sat down at His Fathers right side on His throne. There is no need for Jesus to bring incense to avoid dying in God’s presence. He is not in conflict with the Testimony beneath the mercy-seat in heaven. He is the law in flesh. But when He hung on that cross, the law was against Him for He was carrying our sins. For a moment He was separated from the Father, and the sins He was carrying was in conflict with the law beneath Him inside that cave. And so at the first sprinkling Jesus did not behold the Mercy Seat as He brought His blood to it. The coal from the alter, Christ giving His body (Mat 26:26), and His last prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is what made that sprinkling possible, in spite Him mixing the role of High Priest and sacrifice. And so if anything, this first sprinkling had to happen on the cross with the «coal from the alter» hiding the Mercy Seat. The alter of the sacrifice was involved in the first sprinkling but not mentioned in the second. Only the blood is mentioned in the second. Thus, this detail might have been mistakenly attributed to both sprinklings while it should only have been attributed to the first sprinkling, distinguishing the difference in the situation of the two sprinklings .If the cloud filled with smoke was tied to the sprinkling of the mercy seat the first time, then why do we see the temple filled with smoke during the Great Day of Atonement in heaven?

«And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.» (Rev.15,8)

This verse clearly states the temple was filled with «smoke from the glory of God». When incense was filling the temple in Revelation it’s explained in this way:

«And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.» (Rev.8,3)

The incense represents prayer, while the glory of God is something different. When the temple is filled with smoke from God’s glory, the plagues are being sent out on earth, this means that the Day of Atonement at this time has come to an end. So this smoke is not represented by the High Priest entering to START His atoning ministry. The smoke in Revelation represents that this ministry is over. It can be compared to the time of Ezekiel where we see the glory of the Lord fills the temple as God is about to leave the temple in Jerusalem. This means that there is a difference between the incense and the glory of God. The incense was always burning in the temple. Blood was taken upon the horns of the alter representing how our prayers reach the temple by His blood, or that the blood is the power of our prayers.And so the smoke from coal mixed with the incense is not the same as the event we see in Revelation 15. The first sprinkling of the Mercy Seat was to be HID FROM THE EYES OF THE HIGH PRIEST. He was sprinkling the mercy seat without seeing it. In the same way the mercy seat was hid when Jesus died on the cross, and He sprinkled it without seeing it. He was dead when the blood and the water poured out from His side, an event made possible by God’s interference. Making the soldier pierce Christ side and making the rocks rent. In the first sprinkling, symbolically speaking, coal from the alter took part in hiding the mercy seat from the priest. For as a sacrifice clothed in our sins Jesus was targeted by the law claiming His death. He could not enter the the place with the mercy-meat clothed in our sins, nor could He behold it while clothed in our sins, while being under the condemnation that was supposed to be ours. This was the result of switching places with us.The second time, in heaven, this is not an issue. And so the two sprinklings made on the Day of Atonement perfectly fits this discovery as well as the cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven.We might call the events of the two sprinklings «part 1» and «part 2». We learned of part 2 first and getting to know Ron’s discovery we learned how part 2 was made possible by introducing part 1. But God’s people felt threatened when they realized that they had not been given the full knowledge when they learned about Part 2. That has always been the problem with God’s people. They always think they have the full picture when, in reality, they don’t. And when God adds additional understanding they have no room for it. But for us the important part is not if they or we have room for it but if the Bible has room for it. The Bible has to be our guideline, not assumptions. So is it right that our attention should go from the cross, then to the ministry in the most holy place in heaven, and then BACK to the cross?

«And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.» (Lev 16:18)

Well this is actually what takes place on the Day of Atonement. First the priest made atonement for Him and His house, then He goes into the Most holy place to «cleanse the sanctuary» the type of the investigative judgment after the 2300 years, and then something else happens. The priest now takes the blood of both animals, the blood of the ox and the goat together and sprinkle it on the horns of alter. The alter again, was where the animals was sacrificed as an illustration of Christ death here on earth. And then, the last part of this ministry work is to bring the blood from both the cross and the ritual tied to heavenly ministry BACK to the beginning, the place Jesus was sacrificed for our sake. Thus, the last part of the Day of Atonement is to bring the attention to the place Jesus died. The ox-blood and the goat-blood was placed on the HORNS of the alter. Horns in the Bible symbolizes POWER or STRENGTH. The power and strength of Christ ministry in heaven for our sake is the blood of cross. And so God, on the great day of atonement, brings our attention back to the cross. The blood that was used to cleanse the sanctuary and the most holy, the blood of the goat, is taken back to the horns of the alter representing the cross. God wants our final attention to be taken back to the power of the cross. In other words, this discovery isn’t necessarily in competition to a heavenly sanctuary and Christ in the Most Holy Place, it is directing our attention to the power of Christ ministry, towards His death for our sake. Notice that NOT ONLY the goat blood used in the cleansing of the sanctuary is used, but also the blood of the ox. Like this, the two events are blended together, and together they are the power of our faith. Christ bringing the attention back to the cross might indicate that He has now been in the final stages of His work in heaven. He is now ready to come back. But we can reject this interpretation and even if you don’t think this might have some truth to it, I have more I’d like to address before you make up your mind.

The Ark to search out a resting place

One of the purposes of the Ark was to lead God’s people to a resting place.

«and the ark of the covenant of the LORD went before them in the three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them.» (Num 10,33)

Who were to seek out a resting place for them? It was really the Lord, not the Ark Right? Because it’s only an object. Why does God then say the Ark was to lead them to a resting place? Why not just say «I will»? Everything written in the law has meaning and here it testifies the many assignments of the Ark. Did the Ark find them a true resting place in the end? The Ark traveled with them many places. When they entered the promised land they placed it in Shiloh, a name which meaning is peace. Later it was placed in Jerusalem which also means peace. But this was not the rest they had been promised. The Jews had hoped this land would be their rest but it never was. Where was their true rest? What does Paul say?

«For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.» (Heb 4:3)

Our rest is by the foot of the cross. Only by the salvation given there can we and them and everyone else find true rest. If the Ark really traveled all the way to the foot of the cross, if that was the last stop of its journey, then the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant will truly lead man to true rest. The belief in Christ death in our place. If the Ark ended up any other place it could never lead anyone to true rest ever. Don’t you agree?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.