Why Don’t Christians Ordain a High Priest?

If God commanded Moses to ordain a high priest, then why is it we aren’t doing that today? After all, the book of Leviticus recounts a 7-day ceremony meant to inaugurate the priesthood, and the high priesthood in particular, for the Israelites. If the Bible commands it, then why aren’t we doing it?

Although the Old Testament books were written for us, they were not written to us.  They were written to ancient Israel, to a people who were saved from Egyptian slavery, and who agreed to a covenant with God, mediated through Moses. Since we are not living under the same covenant with God, then we cannot blindly apply Old Testament commands to our lives today. We must look to the new covenant described in the New Testament for guidance.

When we look at the New Testament book of Hebrews, our questions are answered about the High Priest. The author of Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus Christ is our High Priest. As High Priest, he made a “sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people,” he was faithful to his calling from God the Father, he resides in Heaven with the Father, he is able to “sympathize with our weaknesses,” and he is High Priest forever. The author of Hebrews summarizes:

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. (Heb 7:26-27)

Commentary on Leviticus 8-10 (The Ordination of Aaron and His Sons)

The first seven chapters of Leviticus regulate the offerings to be given to God. Now that these instructions have been given, it is time for Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his four sons, to be anointed as the first Israelite priests under the new Mosaic covenant.

Since there are no priests yet, Moses acts in the role of high priest to anoint Aaron and his sons, according to the commands of God. In verses 1-3, God gives Moses instructions to begin the anointing ceremony. The following people and items are needed: 1) Aaron and his four sons, 2) the garments that were made for them as specified by God in the book of Exodus, 3) anointing oil, 4) a bull for a sin offering, 5) two rams and bread without yeast for additional offerings, and 6) the elders representing all of the tribes and clans of Israel. Everyone was to gather in the tabernacle courtyard to witness what was about to happen.

In verse 5, Moses says, “This is what the Lord has commanded to be done.” The entire process of ordination was detailed in Exodus 29, and Leviticus 8 and 9 confirm that Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel, did exactly as God had earlier commanded. Verses 6-29 recount the first day of the ordination of the first High Priest (Aaron) and his sons.

Gordon J. Wenham, in The Book of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), explains the significance of the role of high priest and his garments. “The nation of Israel as a whole was called to be a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6), and the church is also (1 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 1:6). Israel could see in the glorious figure of the high priest the personal embodiment of all that the nation ought to be both individually and corporately.”

As we pick up at verse 30, we see Moses completing the first day’s ceremonies. Moses takes anointing oil and blood from the altar (placed there during the sacrifices of the bull and rams) and sprinkles Aaron and his sons with them. This completed the first day of the ordination (which would last 7 days).

For the next 6 days, Aaron and his sons would have to offer sacrifices for themselves every day. Moses commands them not to leave the tabernacle courtyard for the remainder of the 7-day period, lest they become unclean.

Moses explains to Aaron and his sons, in verse 34, that the ordination rituals just completed were to make atonement for their sins. After all, the primary duty of the High Priest was to atone for the sins of Israel so that Israel could remain in relationship with God. But the High Priest cannot make atonement for the people before he atones for his own sins. That was the purpose of the day’s sacrifices. Again, we see in verse 36 that they “did everything the Lord commanded through Moses.”

Wenham brings out a central theme of chapter 8, the pervasiveness of sin. He writes,

In this section one doctrine emerges very clearly: the universality and pervasiveness of sin. The men chosen to minister to God in the tabernacle pollute the tabernacle and therefore purification offerings have to be offered. Their clothes and bodies are stained with sin and they must be smeared with blood to purify them. These sacrifices are not offered just once; they have to be repeated, because sin is deep-rooted in human nature and often recurs. There is no once-for-all cleansing known to the OT. It is the incorrigibility of the human heart that these ordination ceremonies bring into focus.

In chapter 9, we have moved ahead to the 8th day of the ordination of Aaron and his sons. Now that they have atoned for their sins, it is time for them to atone for the sins of all of Israel. In verses 1-5, Moses explains all of the offerings that must be made for the people. The purpose for the sacrifices is stated in verse 6: “This is what the Lord has commanded you to do, so that the glory of the Lord may appear to you.” Once the sins of Aaron and sons were atoned for, and then the sins of the rest of Israel were atoned for, God would appear and confirm his presence and covenant with Israel.

In verse 22 of chapter 9, Aaron completes the sacrifices for the people of Israel. With the process completed Moses and Aaron go into the tabernacle. When they come back out, God’s glory appears in the form of fire on the brazen altar that instantly consumes all of the remaining offering. The elders of Israel react as any of us would when confronted with the God of the universe. They fell flat on their faces and shouted for joy!

Why was the whole process of sacrifices and ordination necessary for God’s presence to be made known? Wenham comments:

Aaron’s gorgeous garments, the multiplicity of animal sacrifices, were not ends in themselves but only means to the end, namely, the proper worship of God. These elaborate vestments and sacrifices helped simple human minds appreciate the majestic holiness of God. But all the ritual in the OT would have been pointless if God had not deigned to reveal himself to the people. The clothing and the sacrifices merely helped to put the worshippers in a state of mind that was prepared for God’s coming, and removed the obstacles of human sin that prevented fellowship, but they did not necessarily ensure God’s presence.

Throughout all of chapters 8 and 9, we are reminded that every command of God was followed with exactitude. In the first three verses of chapter 10, however, we see what happens when the newly anointed priests disobey God’s commands.

Aaron’s two oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, offer incense to God, but they do it in a way that is unauthorized, that is contrary to God’s commands. The text is not clear as to their exact violation. Some scholars have speculated that they performed a Canaanite or Egyptian ritual. Regardless, it seems they knew what they were doing and they paid for their disobedience with their lives.

Fire consumed both of them, fire from God. Moses, in verse 3, explains to Aaron that the priests must honor God because he is holy, with the implication being that Nadab and Abihu did not honor God. Rather than dispute what Moses said, Aaron remained silent.

What are we to make of the death of Aaron’s sons? It seems that the closer a man is to God (Levite priest being very close indeed) the stricter is the standard by which he will be judged. The New Testament reiterates this teaching. Consider Luke 12:48: “Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be required.” Peter said in 1 Pet 4:17, “Judgment begins with the household of God.” James said in James 3:1, “We who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.” Christians in visible leadership are held to a higher standard.

Will We Lose Our Identities in Heaven?

No, but this seems to concern some believers. Author Randy Alcorn, in his book Heaven, deals with this question.

A man wrote me expressing his fear of losing his identity in Heaven: “Will being like Jesus mean the obliteration of self?” He was afraid that we’d all be alike, that he and his treasured friends would lose their distinguishing traits and eccentricities that make them special.

But he needn’t worry. We can all be like Jesus in character yet remain very different from each other in personality. Distinctiveness is God’s creation, not Satan’s. What makes us unique will survive. In fact, much of our uniqueness may be uncovered for the first time.

At the very end of Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis writes, “Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most ‘natural’ men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints. . . . Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him , and with Him everything else thrown in.”

There is a profound lesson here. The more like Christ we become, or the more we approach the good, the true, and the beautiful, the more unique, fascinating, and special we become. The farther away we move from Christ, or the more we move toward the evil, the false, and the ugly, the more dull and monotonous we become.

God brings out the best in us, and so we can never reach our full, glorious potential away from Him.

Is There Any Scientific Controversy Over Darwinian Evolution? Part 2

After writing part 1 of this blog post almost 3 years ago, I received several comments along the lines of, “Just because one scientist, James Shapiro, disagrees with the idea that natural selection acting on random mutations is the main engine of evolutionary change, does not mean there is a controversy.”

My goal in quoting Shapiro was not to state merely that Shapiro diverges from evolutionary orthodoxy, but to encourage the reader to go off and do some more reading to see that there are many more dissenting scientists, just like him. To help along that process, I’ve quoted from an article below that lists several more examples of the controversy. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but is meant to lead truly curious readers to do more reading themselves. For those of you who have already decided that there is no controversy, don’t waste your time reading any further. You’ll just get more upset.

Here is Casey Luskin in an article he wrote for the Christian Research Journal titled “The New Theistic Evolutionists.” Luskin notes that

highly credible scientists doubt the neo-Darwinian view that natural selection acting on random mutation was the driving force building the complexity of life. Lynn Margulis, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, explained that “neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism,” and admitted, “I believed it until I looked for evidence.”

In 2008, sixteen leading biologists convened in Altenberg, Austria, to discuss problems with the neo-Darwinian synthesis. When covering this conference, Nature quoted leading scientists saying things like “evolutionary theory has told us little about” important events like “the origin of wings and the invasion of the land.”

That same year, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine explained that “every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false,” including: “natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process,” “macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution,” and “evolution produces a tree of life.”

Luskin adds:

The following year, leading biologist Eugene Koonin wrote that breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” or that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution” indicate “the modem synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.” . . . Koonin mentioned growing skepticism over the “tree of life,” and the technical literature contains numerous examples of conflicting evolutionary trees, challenging universal common ancestry.

An article in Nature reported that “disparities between molecular and morphological trees” lead to “evolution wars” because “evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” Another Nature paper reported that newly discovered genes “are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree,” since they “give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.”

A 2009 article in New Scientist observes that “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.” So severe are problems that a 2012 paper in Annual Review of Genetics proposed “life might indeed have multiple origins.”

Again, if you want to argue that there is no controversy, you are simply ignorant of what’s going on. Instead of trying to shout down any one who says there is a controversy, your time would be better spent spend studying the differing views on evolution so that you can truly understand the issues involved.

What Is the Pantheist Answer to Evil?

The universal human experience of evil is a problem for all worldviews, not just Christianity. Philosopher Norm Geisler, in his book If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Questionexplains that there are three main views on evil that come from the “big three” worldviews of pantheism, atheism, theism.

Pantheism affirms God and denies evil.

Atheism affirms evil and denies God.

Theism affirms both God and evil.

In a previous blog post, I explained why the existence of objective evil is a devastating problem for the atheist worldview, but why is the pantheist answer to evil also problematic? Geisler explains:

In general, pantheists believe God exists but deny the existence of evil. They believe God is good, God is All, and hence there is no evil. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, held this view, maintaining that “evil is an error of [the] moral mind.”

Most people, however, find it difficult to accept this answer. The old limerick summarizes their conundrum well:

“There was a Faith Healer of deal

Who said ‘Although pain isn’t real,

If I sit upon a pin,

And it punctures my skin,

I dislike what I fancy I feel!'”

So why is this a problem for the pantheist view?

In short, if evil is not real, then why does it hurt so badly? If pain, suffering, and death are not real, then how do we explain where the illusion came from? And why does everyone have it? Further, why is the illusion so persistent? Why can’t we make it go away?

When we wonder whether we are dreaming or awake, we can pinch ourselves. We know we have been dreaming because we wake up. But we don’t wake up from suffering, which always surrounds us and often invades us. We can tell an illusion because there is always a backdrop of reality by which we know it is an illusion. But evil is part of the backdrop of life itself. How then can it be illusory?

The pantheist is then left with claiming that the pervasive, universal phenomena of human suffering is unreal, an illusion. Rather than explaining what evil is, the pantheist has simply denied its existence. On top of that, I can guarantee that every person that claims evil and suffering are illusions, act every day as if they are real. The pantheist view of evil is simply unlivable and incoherent.

Why Don’t Christians Sacrifice Animals to Atone for Sins?

There are many commands given by God to the Israelites at Mount Sinai that Christians do not obey, animal sacrifice being one of them. Aren’t we disobeying God by not following his commands? Skeptics of Christianity love to read through the Book of Leviticus and point out how inconsistent we are in obeying God’s commands. How do we explain this?

In general terms, Christians are told by New Testament writers that we are under a new covenant and that the old covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai (often called “the Law”) is obsolete (see Heb 8:13 and Rom 7:6, for example). Therefore, there is no obligation for Christians to obey any commands in Leviticus without further consideration about how those commands should be applied by New Testament believers.

More specifically, the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is the all-sufficient sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins, so further sacrifices are unnecessary. Jesus said he came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Paul said, “Walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2). Peter said, “You were ransomed . . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:18–19). And finally, Heb. 7:27 mentions the daily sacrifices the Levite priests offered, but Christ offered one sacrifice “once for all when he offered up himself.”

Commentary on Leviticus 1 (Sacrifices)

The book of Leviticus opens with God calling to Moses from the Tent of Meeting. God wants Moses to instruct the Israelites how to bring offerings to Him, now that the tabernacle complex (God’s home among the Israelites) has been constructed. Remember that offerings had been made to God as early as Abraham, so it wasn’t that God was introducing new kinds of offerings to the people, but He was instead teaching them how to do these offerings now that there is a new covenant between them (represented by the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments).

There are five kinds of offerings that are regulated in Leviticus: burnt, grain, fellowship, sin, and guilt. We will only dig into the burnt offering, as it is the most important and the first to be regulated.

The person who wants to give a burnt offering to God may choose between 3 kinds of domesticated animals: 1) cattle, 2) sheep or goats, or 3) doves and pigeons. Cattle were worth more than sheep and goats, but sheep and goats were worth more than doves and pigeons. Which animal was offered depended on the relative wealth of the person giving the burnt offering. In each case, however, the offering was a significant economic sacrifice. These domesticated animals provided food, clothing, and many other essential things for people living at this time. To give up one of these animals was painful.

In verses 3-9, the instructions for the sacrifice of cattle is given. These verses teach us important truths about the process. First, in verse 3, we see that the cow must be a male without defect. Male cattle (bull) were more valuable than female and a bull without defect was worth more than a bull with defects. Only the best was allowed for the burnt offering to God.

Continuing in verse 3, the person making the sacrifice is to bring it to the entrance of the tabernacle courtyard (“entrance curtain” in this illustration – http://www.karbelmultimedia.com/portfolio/the-tabernacle/).

In verse 5, the person offering the bull must place his hands on the head of the bull so that the bull’s sacrifice can make atonement for the offerer. What does atonement refer to here? According to Gordon J. Wenham in The Book of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), “The worshipper acknowledged his guilt and responsibility for his sins by pressing his hand on the animal’s head and confessing his sin. The lamb [or bull or bird] was accepted as the ransom price for the guilty man.”

Verses 5-9 dictate that the person giving the burnt offering must kill the bull himself, skin the bull, cut the bull into pieces, and then wash the parts of the bull in water. The Levite priests will capture dripping blood from the animal and sprinkle the blood on the brazen altar (see illustration above). After the offerer has completed the above steps, the priests will arrange the pieces of the bull on the brazen altar and burn all of it.

Gordon Wenham explains the significance of the ritual to those participating:

Using a little imagination every reader of the OT soon realizes that these ancient sacrifices were very moving occasions. They make modern church services seem tame and dull by comparison. The ancient worshipper did not just listen to the minister and sing a few hymns. He was actively involved in the worship. He had to choose an unblemished animal from his own flock, bring it to the sanctuary, kill it and dismember it with his own hands, then watch it go up in smoke before his very eyes. He was convinced that something very significant was achieved through these acts and knew that his relationship with God was profoundly affected by this sacrifice.

The rest of Leviticus 1 explains similar processes for the offering of goats, sheep, doves, and pigeons. The only difference for the birds is that because they are so small, the priests end up performing most of the ceremony.

So what is the overall purpose of the burnt offering? Wenham summarizes for us:

The burnt offering was the commonest of all the OT sacrifices. Its main function was to atone for man’s sin by propitiating God’s wrath. In the immolation of the animal, most commonly a lamb, God’s judgment against human sin was symbolized and the animal suffered in man’s place. The worshipper acknowledged his guilt and responsibility for his sins by pressing his hand on the animal’s head and confessing his sin. The lamb was accepted as the ransom price for the guilty man.

The daily use of the sacrifice in the worship of the temple and tabernacle was a constant reminder of man’s sinfulness and God’s holiness. So were its occasional usages after sickness, childbirth, and vows. In bringing a sacrifice a man acknowledged his sinfulness and guilt. He also publicly confessed his faith in the Lord, his thankfulness for past blessing, and his resolve to live according to God’s holy will all the days of his life.

What Are the Limits of Physics?

Contrary to the disciples of scientism, physics has limits. Philosopher Ed Feser gives a quick run-down which is worth passing along. Feser writes,

As I have emphasized many times, what physics gives us is a description of the mathematical structure of physical reality.  It abstracts from any aspect of reality which cannot be captured via its exclusively quantitative methods. (emphasis added)

Let’s stop here because this is important. What Feser is saying is that when the methods of physics are applied to any object, any event, any piece of the world around us, the method only addresses the parts of that object, event, or piece of the world that can be mathematically quantified. Physics ignores any parts of the world that cannot be mathematically quantified.

One reason that this is crucial to keep in mind is that from the fact that something doesn’t show up in the description physics gives us, it doesn’t follow that it isn’t there in the physical world.  This is like concluding from the fact that color doesn’t show up in a black and white pen and ink drawing of a banana that bananas must not really be yellow.

In both cases the absence is an artifact of the method employed, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality the method is being used to represent.  The method of representing an object using black ink on white paper will necessarily leave out color even if it is there, and the method of representing physical reality using exclusively mathematical language will necessarily leave out any aspect of physical reality which is not reducible to the quantitative, even if such aspects are there.

But maybe all of reality is just composed of mathematical structure. Feser argues that this cannot be the case, that other aspects of reality must be there.

The quantitative description physics gives us is essentially a description of mathematical structure.  But mathematical structure by itself is a mere abstraction.  It cannot be all there is, because structure presupposes something concrete which has the structure.  Indeed, physics itself tells us that the abstraction cannot be all there is, since it tells us that some abstract mathematical structures do not fit the actual, concrete material world.

For example, Einstein is commonly taken to have shown that our world is not really Euclidean.  This could only be true if there is some concrete reality that instantiates a non-Euclidean abstract structure rather than a Euclidean abstract structure.  So, physics itself implies that there must be more to the world than the abstract structure it captures in its purely mathematical description, but it does not and cannot tell us exactly what this concrete reality is like.

Physics is one tool, a powerful one certainly, in our toolbox for describing reality. But to think that it is the only tool in the toolbox is just silly.

Commentary on Exodus 35-40 (Construction of the Tabernacle)

After the Golden Calf incident in chapter 32, God renewed his covenant with Israel and again wrote the covenant on two stone tablets. Most likely the two tablets were identical, as there would be one tablet for each party in the covenant (God and Israel).

In order for Israel to worship God properly, God gives Moses detailed instructions on the construction of the tabernacle, a sanctuary where God will dwell among the people of Israel. In verses 4-9 of Exodus 35, Moses begins the process of constructing the tabernacle (sometimes called the Tent of Meeting) by asking for the raw materials to be donated by the people.

The materials can be grouped in metals, fabrics, skins and wood, lamp oil, the anointing oil ingredients and incense ingredients, and gemstones. Each of the materials serves a specific purpose in the construction of the tabernacle. It should be noted that the raw materials are valuable, so that a great voluntary sacrifice of material wealth will have to be given by the Israelites. Once the materials for construction are collected, the people are commanded to build the tabernacle and everything that goes along with it.

In verses 10-19, Moses lists what must be built: the tabernacle with its tent and its covering, clasps, frames, crossbars, posts and bases; the ark of the covenant; the table on which the bread of the Presence will sit; the lampstand; the altar of incense; the curtain for the doorway at the entrance to the tabernacle; the altar of burnt offering; the bronze basin; the curtains of the courtyard; the tent pegs for the tabernacle and courtyard; and the woven garments worn for ministering in the sanctuary.

What is the purpose of the tabernacle and all of its contents? Let’s take them one by one. The significance of the entire tabernacle itself is that it is to represent God’s presence among his people. The Israelites were to place the tabernacle (where God is present) at the center of their camp. We know from the Book of Hebrews that the tabernacle was also be an earthly representation of Heaven, a pointer to the place where all of God’s people will forever be in His presence.

What about the ark? There appear to be two purposes for it. First, it would contain the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments as a symbol of the covenant agreement. Second, the lid of the ark would serve as the “mercy seat,” a pure gold sculpture that symbolized a place for God to stand as a contact point for God and the Israelites. Here God would reveal divine truth to his people.

The purpose of the table in the outer room was to hold the bread of Presence. Since the tabernacle was to symbolize God’s house, the table was to symbolize where God would eat. A special group of Levites would bake twelve loaves each week, let them sit on the table, and then the priests would eat them at the end of the week, and start the process over again.

The lampstand (menorah) was to signify that God was “home” in the tabernacle. All of the Israelite tents used lamp light at night to allow them to see, so God’s house also needed lamp light. The seven lamps of this impressive lampstand would have burned extremely bright in the middle of the Israelite camp.

The purpose of the altar of incense in the outer room of the tabernacle was to represent the prayers of the people of Israel to God. In the ancient world, burning incense symbolized prayer, and that is why this altar is located right in front of the curtain that separates the outer room of the tabernacle from the inner room (Holy of Holies). The incense would travel directly to the ark behind the curtain, where God met with the people.

Since the tabernacle was God’s earthly home, the curtain at the entrance to the tabernacle could be thought of as the front door to his house. The curtain at the entrance was often kept open so that people could see into the tabernacle front room which contained the lampstand, altar of incense, and table.

The next objects to be built were outside of the tabernacle, in the large courtyard that surrounded the tabernacle. The courtyard was to serve as a community worship space right outside of God’s house, the tabernacle. The most important component of the courtyard was the altar of burnt offering. Douglas Stuart describes the purpose of the altar of burnt offerings:

In various ways during Old Covenant times, God taught his people the basic principle of salvation from sin: something that God considers a substitute must die in my place so that I may live. Altar sacrifice was the primary way for this substitution to happen. In preparation for Christ’s death on the cross, which was the ultimate sacrifice to which all others pointed, animal sacrifice was required of all Israelites.

Since it is dangerous to eat raw animal meat, God required that it be cooked, and to accomplish this a large outdoor grill was required. By killing an animal, then cooking it on that grill in God’s presence (i.e., in front of the entrance to the tabernacle), and then eating it in God’s presence (symbolically sharing the meal with him), the Israelite worshiper learned over and over again the concept of substitutionary atonement and of covenant renewal. The sacrificial meal always included a portion of a formerly living thing (sacrificial animal) that had been put to death in the place of the worshiper. It was prepared and cooked at God’s house . . . , and it renewed the worshiper’s commitment to his or her covenant with Yahweh each time it was eaten.

The purpose of the bronze basin in the courtyard was simple, but important: the priests must wash their hands and feet each time they prepared to offer a sacrifice and each time they entered the tabernacle. This washing not only symbolized the purity that God demands, but was also important for sanitary reasons.

The curtains of the courtyard were there to mark off the courtyard enclosure where the sacrifices to God were to be made. The tent pegs were used to secure the curtains of the courtyard and tabernacle.

Moses’ brother, Aaron, and his sons were to be set apart from the rest of Israel as priests to God. They were to wear special garments that included a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban and a sash. God instructs them to be made out of “gold, and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and fine linen.”

As we skip ahead to chapter 40, God commands Moses, in verse 1, to set up the tabernacle, the courtyard, and all of its contents on the first day of the first month of their second year at Mount Sinai (this would have been mid-March to mid-April, or the end of winter). The next 32 verses record the faithful consecration and anointing of God’s earthly home. It is interesting to note that the tabernacle was portable enough that it could be assembled in a single day, most likely in a few hours.

In verses 34-38, we see that once the tabernacle was assembled and consecrated for the first time, a cloud representing God’s presence descended on the tabernacle. God had taken up residence in his earthly home. From that day forward, God, in the form of the cloud, would rise to indicate that Israel was to move camp.

Will Human Culture Disappear in Heaven?

Some Christians are under the impression that in Heaven everything will revert back to a primitive paradise, like what Adam and Eve experienced. They reason that the achievements of mankind are worthless, and in most cases, an affront to God’s plan.

Did God plan, though, for Adam and Eve, and all mankind, to remain in a state of “nature,” to never invent architecture, music, literature, technology? What about the sciences or even athletics?

Randy Alcorn, author of the book Heaven, thinks not. Alcorn argues that at least parts of human culture will be retained, and even improved in Heaven. Alcorn writes,

Earth exists for the same reason that mankind and everything else exists: to glorify God. God is glorified when we take our rightful, intended place in his creation and exercise the dominion that he bestowed on us. God appointed human beings to rule the earth: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ ” (Genesis 1: 26-28, NKJV).

God’s intention for humans was that we would occupy the whole Earth and reign over it. This dominion would produce God-exalting societies in which we would exercise the creativity, imagination, intellect, and skills befitting beings created in God’s image, thereby manifesting his attributes. To be made in God’s image involves a communicative mandate: that through our creative industry as God’s subcreators, we should together make the invisible God visible, thus glorifying him in the sight of all creation.

Alcorn quotes theologian Erich Sauer writing about the phrase in Genesis 1: 26 “let them have dominion”:

These words plainly declare the vocation of the human race to rule. They also call him to progressive growth in culture. Far from being something in conflict with God, cultural achievements are an essential attribute of the nobility of man as he possessed it in Paradise. Inventions and discoveries, the sciences and the arts, refinement and ennobling, in short, the advance of the human mind, are throughout the will of God. They are the taking possession of the earth by the royal human race (Genesis 1:28), the performance of a commission, imposed by the Creator, by God’s ennobled servants, a God-appointed ruler’s service for the blessing of this earthly realm.

Let’s pause for a moment. A thoughtful Christian might reply, “What about those verses in the Bible that say we should avoid the world and its ways. How can Heaven contain human culture when we’re warned that human culture is to be avoided?”

Alcorn explains,

We need to think carefully when we read Scriptures that talk about ‘the world.’ I recommend adding the words as it is now, under the Curse, to keep the biblical distinctions clear in our minds:

Friendship with the world [as it is now, under the Curse] is hatred toward God. (James 4:4)

Do not be conformed to this world [as it is now, under the Curse]. (Romans 12: 2, NKJV)

The wisdom of this world [as it is now, under the Curse] is foolishness with God. (1 Corinthians 3: 19, NKJV)

The world as it was, and the world as it will be, is exceedingly good. The world as it is now, inhabited by humanity as we are now, is twisted. But this is a temporary condition, with an eternal remedy: Christ’s redemptive work.

Yes, human culture has been horribly tainted by sin, but that doesn’t mean that everything humans have created will be tossed in the garbage. There are elements of human culture that glorify God, and why shouldn’t those elements continue on with the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth?