Mystery of the Melchizedek – Part 4

Why did YHWH want Moshe Rabainu? Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Ahdahm to Moshe, even over all those that had not sinned after the sin of Ahdahm’s transgression, who is the type of Him that was to come. 1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: (Same Melchizedek verbiage as Exodus 19:5-6 = 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6 & 5:10) Why did the Apostle Paul stop with ‘Moses’? The reason is Moshe was the last Melchizedek. Don’t lump Covenants. Book of the Law (BoL) Exodus 24:12 – through Deuteronomy AND INTO THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. It includes the “Law of Moses” and it’s Not a Covenant in the Malki sense– There is no proposal, no agreed acceptance, no ratification of any kind, let alone by blood and no covenant confirming meal. יהוה makes a brit: understood to be a ‘pledge’/‘alliance’ with Israel. Does it include covenant? Yes! Is it the the covenant that appears in the allegory of Sarah and Hagar? Yes! But it’s not a Covenant by the Malki Tzedik terms found in scripture, it’s an alliance and pledge to the flesh of carnal Israel! That’s why Joshua can add to the BoL in Joshua 24:26! He couldn’t do that if it was a blood ratified covenant (Galatians 3:15). It INCLUSIVE of the second set of tablets or “the law of Moses.”Because Moses cut the stones, Moses talked to the people. Moses did not mediate this law concession. There was no exchange – Moses delivered this Formal Legal Oration to a group (they couldn’t say NO!). YHWH didn’t engage with the people with whom he was making this temporal law enactment directly. YHWH set up a perimeter between him and the people in which only Levites could function. Showing us the already in function Levitical Priesthood Numbers 3:12 at Exodus 34 demonstrating that this bloodless ‘law action’ to be under the Levitical Priesthood Hebrews 7:11 and NOT a Melchizedek Priesthood ‘covenant of promise’ Ephesians 2:12. It’s paramount we understand the distinction between the initial blood covenant with the first set of tablets and the second set of tablets that was NOT a blood covenant? The distinction of blood and no blood between them identifies that they cannot be one and the same. Galatians identifies what law was added at Exodus 24:12 after the ratified BoC. Galatians doesn’t mention ‘the five books of Moses’ as the traditional anti nomina church would have you believe nor does it mention the ‘Oral law’ as messianic’s would have you believe NOR does it mention a separate ‘Law of Moses’ .It identifies by name the BoL in 3:10. V.17 informs us that the law (now identified by V. 10) came 430 years later and was after the covenant (BoC) . This identifies that the law that was added in Exodus 24:12 after the blood ratified covenant was confirmed was…….V.10 the BoL! No gymnastics, no esoteric twisting, no emotional pleas just line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little! The law added in Exodus 24:12 can only be the BoL according to Rav Shaul’s communication to the Galatians and confirmed by Hebrews 7:11. Covenant reinstatement of Shemot 34 Shemot 34 is not a ‘covenant of promise’ it comes after the original Malki-Tzedik covenant and the break of the Golden Calf. As does the balance of Exodus From Exodus 25 on, Lev. Num., Dt. {27-28-29}, the balance of the TaNaK, etc. This is a Levitical concession action not a covenant of promise. An emergency patch and bandage or an enactment of Law, till the time of reformation (Hebrews 8) YHWH’s solution was to wipe them all out (National Death) and start over with Moses (Exodus 32:10). BUT Moses pleaded for the people – Yah relented – BUT – there was and would be consequences. Starting with being put under the Levitical Priesthood. Exodus 34 is the *1st act under the new Levitical Priesthood (Numbers 3:12 / Hebrews 7:11) – with many to follow and was more akin to the enactment