The God Culture: What Happened to the Levites?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is obsessed with the Levites and the Levitical priesthood. He has an an entire project called The Levite Bible in which he is going to augment and edit the KJV with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tim's contention is that the inhabitants of Qumran were actually exiled temple priests and not Essenes. Way out in the desert they carried on the TRUE temple practice including sacrifices because the Hasmoneans defiled the temple during the time of the Maccabees. 

According to magazine publisher and Dead Sea Scrolls non-expert Timothy Jay Schwab these Levites were in the wilderness busily preparing the way for Jesus Christ with John the Baptist as their leader. Thus all of John's disciples were Levites. That is the foundation which Tim lays down in the first video. 

What Happened to the Levite Priest? Part 1 This is a WOW!!!

40:26 So, the temple priests, the Sons of Zadook and Levites, were exiled from the temple to Qumran about 165 B.C. They were preparing the way in the wilderness for the coming Messiah, Yahusha, as John would become their leader and the embodiment of that especially. 

It should be noted that the inhabitants of Qumran called themselves Levites, Priests, and Sons of Zadok SYMBOLICALLY. 

The Priests are the converts of Israel who departed from the land of Judah, and (the Levites are) those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the elect of Israel, the men called by name who shall stand at the end of days. Behold the exact list of their names according to their generations, and the time when they lived, and the number of their trials, and the years of their sojourn, and the exact list of their deeds...(They were the first men) of holiness whom God forgave, and who justified the righteous and condemned the wicked. And until the age is completed, according to the number of those years, all who enter after them shall do according to that interpretation of the Law in which the first (men) were instructed. According to the Covenant which God made with the forefathers, forgiving their sins, so shall He forgive their sins also. But when the age is completed, according to the number of those years, there shall be no more joining the house of Judah, but each man shall stand on his watch-tower: The wall is built, the boundary far removed(Mic. vii, II).

Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg 131-132

Tim has nothing to say about that particular section of the Community Rule. At least nothing truthful.  He cites this passage in the second video at about 9:20 without informing his audience of its symbolic nature.

In the second video Tim will build on this foundation to erect the claim that 6 of The Apostles were Levites. 

Were Some Disciples LEVITES? Part 2 This is a Incredible New Revelation!!! WOW!!!

Tim's proof for this claim is not well reasoned in the slightest but is based on guilt by association and etymology of names. 

Andrew and Peter were Levites because Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist's Levite community and Peter was his brother.

8:46 Understand, and there are two examples on screen, the hierarchy of the Qumran community were the Sons of Zadok as the leaders, uh, specifically John the Baptist in his era. Uh, that was the case. Um, he, he was, he was a leader if not the leader. It appears he was the leader because it calls him Master, uh, in the prophecy. Yeah, pretty clear. And their disciples were whom? Ah! Their disciples were the Levites. So, Sons of Zadok leadership just like the temple and their disciples their followers were Levites. That's well documented in this community many times but again here are two examples on screen. Uh, so, these two disciples are Levites but what are their names? Who are they? Who are these two disciples? This is awesome. 

Now, here we go. The first one was Andrew, Peter's brother. This Andrew was a Levite from a Levite family. That's a bloodline thing which means so was Peter. Boom one two right there. Peter was a Levite y'all. Wow!

John and James were Levites because their father was named after a Levite and they too were disciples of John the Baptist's Levite community

15:16 But is that a Levite name there, uh, Zabdi? Actually it is found for Israelites, uh, basically multiple tribes. Uh, but most certainly is a Levite name as the son of Asaph the famous Levite singer David wrote about, right, that has even the the passage there, uh, in Psalms. So, this guy is likely named for a prominent Levite in fact and regardless his sons, especially John it appears, were disciples in Qumran, Bethabara, of John the Baptist thus Levites. Boom!

Matthew's other name was Levi which makes both he and his brother James Levites 

18:51 In Mark 2:14 the Publican or tax collector whom yahusha called who followed him is most certainly Matthew. there's no doubting that. Uh, everyone knows this. But here, wait, wait, uh, his name is called by his other name which is Levi. Huh. Could Levi be a Levite? And he is son of who? Oh, Alphaeus same as James. These guys were brothers. Uh pretty clear same father and Matthew's name is Levi, a Levite. Yes someone else could call their son Levi but you will find many of those in scripture were actually Levites embedded in that tribe not actually from it. Think about that. Every tribe had Levites embedded. It stands to reason both Matthew actually bearing the name Levi and Mattiyahu, gift of Yahu, uh, Yahua's name is in his, uh, very Hebrew, very biblical Priestly names, uh, and his brother James called the Lesser, uh, were Levites as well. How about that?

Tim sounds very sure about his claims but oddly enough he says they only APPEAR to be Levites.

20:00 There's six. so that is six disciples out of 12 that appear to have been Levites. Four of them we can find incredibly strong, uh, in connection and the other a little less but still strong in possibility. Add to that the Qumran, Bethabara, the community of Levites exiled Temple priests, uh, in leadership like John the Baptist and his disciples being Levites and this my friends is a home run. The Levites became part of the New Testament Ecclesia even into the apostles. How about that?

Look at how Tim says they APPEAR to have been Levites with his evidence for two of them to be "strong in possibility" and then he says it is a home run. Which one is it? Merely possible or a home run? 

But what exactly does it mean that the Apostles were Levites and the Levite community at Qumran followed Jesus Christ?  It means they became priests under Jesus who, as Hebrews says, is a priest after the Order of Melchizedek which goes back to the time of Abraham.

21:23 What does it mean their order was replaced by Yahusha Melchizedek? Uh, they didn't disappear. only as an order. the order disappeared. they continued under him operating under Melchizedek as their high priest under the New Order which was really a rest, you know restoration of the old, they became the New Testament. Generally. How about that?

36:17 Listen to this. This is important. Their priesthood has been disannulled. That's the word that Hebrew 7 uses. meaning thoroughly and completely canceled. It's gone. Does that mean the law was cancelled? Well Yahusha said no in Matthew 5:17 through 20. Why? Because the law of Melchizedek is the same as the law of Moses, see? Yahusha Yahweh wrote part with his finger. Yeah. That's pretty firm. Uh, Paul said no in Romans 7 by the way and other places. Oops. Yes Paul preached and kept the law, the Sabbath, The Feast and he tithed. All of those are there in scripture and we found them and we've shown you. 

What law? But we're no longer under Levites levitical law or the levitical order we are under the Ancient Order that's older than that. The order of Melchizedek who is Messiah. It was him in the spirit back in the day of Abraham and it's him in the flesh since 2,000 years ago.

Hear that? Timothy Jay Schwab says 

"the law of Melchizedek is the same as the law of Moses"

Yet at the same time we are not under the Levitical law but under Christ who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. But if the law of Melchizedek is the law of Moses then there is NO DIFFERENCE between it and the Levitical law because the Levitical law IS THE LAW OF MOSES!!! 

How is Tim so stupid to miss this???

Hebrews says VERY CLEARLY:

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Therefore the law of Melchizedek CANNOT be the law of Moses. Especially seeing as Melchizedek PREDATES MOSES!

Tim says Paul preached and kept the law but this is manifestly NOT the case as he calls the law of Moses the MINISTRATION OF DEATH in 2 Corinthians 3.

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Paul also compares the Law of Moses to Hagar and calls it bondage.

Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

The main and most important thing for Tim is NOT that we have faith in Christ but that we keep the law because by the law, not faith in Christ, comes righteousness.

41:11 The Bible has never said there is no more righteousness thus no more law. That's ridiculous. Of course we're to still be righteous and you can't be right without law. It is never said there is only sin now and so no more law. That that's a really dumb way of reading fragments from Paul which the church does out of context and Paul taught and kept the law. He said is Holy, good, and just. Do we abolish the law? Paul said heaven forbid? Do we bother to read what he said?

Certainly Paul called the law holy, good, and just. But he also said the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and now Christ has come we are no longer under it. 

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Paul is also very clear that our righteousness comes from Jesus Christ and not by keeping the law. If that were not the case then Christ is dead in vain. 

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

What can be said about this new two part series about the Levites? It is simply more ahistorical and unbiblical garbage. Tim contradicts himself throughout when he says the Mosaic law and the law of Melchizedek are the same yet we are not under the Levitical law because the Levitical law is the law of Moses. That makes the law of Melchizedek also the Levitical law. But the Bible is very clear that the purpose of the law of Moses was to lead us to Christ. 

Tim also says Jesus did not initiate a NEW convent but restored the Old Covenant:

operating under Melchizedek as their high priest under the New Order which was really a rest, you know restoration of the old

That is totally wrong. Christ did not come to restore the Old Covenant but to inaugurate a New Covenant. We read about it in Jeremiah. 

Christ explicitly tells the Apostles the New Covenant will be inaugurated by the shedding of His blood. 

It is rather bewildering that Tim is so blind he cannot see these things which are clearly spelled out in the New Testament. Tim is like a dog going back to his vomit as he attempts to go back to the Mosaic law. This is not a light matter. To say that one cannot be righteous without the law is to repudiate the necessity of faith in Christ and to deny Him completely. 

It does not matter how many followers Tim has or how much adulation he receives from them. The fact is Timothy Jay Schwab continues to preach a false gospel, a bizarre false history, and is leading his cult, especially Filipinos to whom his ministry is most directed, down to the fiery pit of hell.