613 Commandments

[8thdaypriest]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Sorry for intruding, but this is just to clarify something. It appears from the account of Scriptures that Zacharias was from the tribe of Judah, NOT from Levi. It was Zacharias' wife, Elisabeth, who was a Levite.

We know that the name Abijah refers to more than one person in the Bible. Among the Abijahs that are not explicitly mentioned there was probably at least one descendant of Aaron.

In the Old Testament King David, Solomon, and Hezekiah organized the priests into divisions (or courses) to serve at the Temple by schedule. The division of Abijah (or Abia) was evidently one of those courses. I've heard that the traditional writings of the Jews tell what time of year the division of Abijah served, but I haven't verified that.

If Zecharias had actually been of the tribe of Judah as you suggest, rather than the tribe of Levi, then Luke's statement that "they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord" would be false, because the commandments of the Lord do not allow men from the tribe of Judah to serve as priests at the temple in Jerusalem (as affirmed in Hebrews 7:13-14).

Yes - King David divided the priesthood into 24 "courses" (I Chron. 24 and 25). Each priest would come up for two weeks at a time. They would draw lots to determine which priest would perform which duty. The "course" of Abijah came up in what would be the middle two weeks of June approximately.

Zechariah could NOT have entered into the first apartment - The Holy Place, were he not a consecrated priest. He saw the angel, was rendered "dumb", went home and "knew" his wife Elizabeth and she was six months with child (John the Baptist) when the angel appeared to Mary. Six months from June is December. So Christ might have been conceived in December, but he certainly wasn't BORN in December. More likely at Sakkot, in the Fall.

It is most interesting that John "saw" 24 Elders in Heaven. Makes me think there are probably more than just 24 of them. More likely "twenty-four courses". And they sang that they were redeemed "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." So these are NOT all Levites.

They sing that they have been made "kings and priests to our God".

And they are serving as priests because they have "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints". They are performing an intercessory work.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Ron Amnsn]

So, can it be safely said that the appointment of the Lord Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah, to serve as High Priest, was likewise NOT in accord with the commandments of the Lord?

Hebrews 8:4 "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;"

Jesus does not serve as high priest at the Temple in Jerusalem.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

So, can it be safely said that the appointment of the Lord Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah, to serve as High Priest, was likewise NOT in accord with the commandments of the Lord?

Hebrews 8:4 "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;"

Jesus does not serve as high priest at the Temple in Jerusalem.

[8thdaypriest]

When Jesus returns to this earth AFTER the 7th millennium, WITH His redeemed, He will be King.

But He was made "high priest forever", which means that He will also be high priest.

He is the anointed "prince" who is allowed to "sit" within the Temple court (Ezek. 44:3).

NOTE: The coming "Son of perdition" will also sit within the Temple court.

Ezek. 45:17 says "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel." He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offers, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel."

The "prince" is acting as "priest".

The "offering" which He will present is His own blood.

Because HE is also the sacrifice.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

Originally Posted By: Samie

So, can it be safely said that the appointment of the Lord Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah, to serve as High Priest, was likewise NOT in accord with the commandments of the Lord?

Hebrews 8:4 "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;"

Jesus does not serve as high priest at the Temple in Jerusalem.

So - you believe that WHEN Christ returns to set up His kingdom on this earth, He will stand by and allow another man to officiate as high priest (one from the line of Aaron). He will be the King but NOT the high priest.

I can't believe that.

[Ron Amnsn]

REGARDING PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION FOR GENTILE CONVERTS:

Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 7:18-20 “Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

This just about sums it up.

You have not accounted for the different meanings of the word "circumcise" and "circumcision" in Paul's writings. Using a concordance or software to search the Bible shows that Paul used that word to mean different things.

The word "circumcised" can have different meanings, just as the word "baptized" means different things. If an SDA asks you, "Are you baptized?" they are probably not wanting to know whether you were sprinkled by the Catholic priest when you were an infant-- yet that was the predominant meaning of "baptized" among Christians for many centuries. When an SDA asks about baptism, they are probably wanting to know if you were baptized by immersion by an ordained SDA minister. Or they could be wondering if you hold official membership in the SDA conference corporation and are thereby qualified to vote at a church business meeting. Those "SDA membership" and "SDA minister" aspects of baptism would be of no relevance or value to a follower of Jesus outside an SDA context or at a time before the SDA church existed.

In Paul's day, the discussion regarding circumcision for Gentile believers was happening in a Jewish context. In fact, the Jewish followers of Jesus had, for the most part, not yet been thrown out of the Jewish synagogues. They still considered themselves to be fully Jewish. The Jewish community had longstanding traditions about how a Gentile person could become a member of the Jewish community and be a member or leader of the local synagogue. Circumcision was a part of that longstanding tradition and it had acquired additional meanings in that context. The situation was complicated by the fact that there were Jews (believers and non-believers) attending those same synagogues, who thought that Jews shouldn't associate with Gentiles unless the Gentiles had progressed through the traditional conversion process for proselytes. Most of us are ignorant of what things mean in a Jewish context, just as most Christians are ignorant of what things mean in an SDA context. (See if your non-SDA friends know what happens when you "go Ingathering" or when you "go to Dorcas".) If we are too lazy to learn what "circumcised" meant in the Jewish context that Paul was addressing 20 centuries ago, it would be more prudent to assume that Paul's teaching agreed with the Old Testament (as Paul testified to Felix, and as the Bereans confirmed) than to assume that it agrees with the man-made traditions handed down to us by the apostate church of the Dark Ages.

Timothy was definitely not circumcised when he was "called", yet Paul circumcised him. Many Christians try to wiggle around this by saying that Timothy's mother was a Jew. However, it was not the identity of Timothy's mother that is mentioned as the reason for the circumcision, but rather the identity of Timothy's father. Also, the timing of Timothy's circumcision comes right between the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, and the delivery of that decision to the affected churches in Acts 16. If Paul won a victory for non-circumcised believers in Acts 15, he effectively threw away that victory when he circumcised Timothy, no matter what reason he did it. Obviously, the kind of circumcision that Paul did to Timothy was not the kind of circumcision that Paul considered "nothing". Paul chose to do it for a reason.

Circumcision is a part of "keeping the commandments of God". Nothing that Paul wrote regarding circumcision would discourage a Jewish believer from circumcising an 8-day-old male child.

[Gustave]

Gustave said,

"They were all passed down orally....

...Scripture IS tradition that has been written down."

I would make an exception to this with the Ten Commandments. They WERE written on stone by the LORD Himself.

I'm trying to look at the principle involved in the different commandments (dietary, cleanliness, quarantine, sexual, marriage, inheritance, war, self defense, slaves, Feasts, etc).

How are these principles brought into the New Covenant?

Or are most of these commandments obsolete?

Thank you Gustave, for your comments.

Blessings,

Rachel

The first set was broken by Moses...

...The second set was crafted by Moses.

...They were worded differently than the 1st.

Radical difference between the Old and New Covenants...

...The 1st prepared the way for the 2nd.

...Demonstrated to man the failure of thinking he was 'God'.

[8thdaypriest]

Timothy was definitely not circumcised when he was "called", yet Paul circumcised him.

He circumcised him BECAUSE of the Jews who were in those quarters, NOT because he thought it necessary for salvation, or to keep the law of Yahweh.

The Jews got rather violent about circumcision, especially when a man entered the Temple court.

KJV Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: (Act 16:3 KJV)

NRS Galatians 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

NKJ Galatians 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. (Gal 2:3 NKJ)

So Paul does not go up to the Temple for any of the Feasts - for 14 years.

And Titus - a converted Gentile, traveling with him - is NOT compelled to be circumcised.

Ron,

Do you believe that only those who are of Hebrew descent need to be physically circumcised?

Just wondering.

[Ron Amnsn]

The blood rule was the oldest articulated dietary rule going back to when God told Noah that they could now eat evertything, but not their blood. And it survived into the NT church for the Gentiles, they were to avoid the blood. The reason was simply that blood was sacred, it was the life force within all creatures. Blood was an integral part of worship and remains a part of our salvation. We are saved by the blood of the Lamb.

Good point. Although I think God gave some instructions regarding diet in Eden.

[Ron Amnsn]

Animal sacrifices did terminate at the death of Christ.

This is inaccurate. History shows that the animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem continued nearly four decades after the death of Christ until the Temple was destroyed by Titus and his army in 70 AD.

The book of Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus continued to meet regularly at the Temple, where those animal sacrifices continued to be sacrificed as part of the daily liturgy for the whole nation of Israel.

[8thdaypriest]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Animal sacrifices did terminate at the death of Christ.

This is inaccurate. History shows that the animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem continued nearly four decades after the death of Christ until the Temple was destroyed by Titus and his army in 70 AD.

The book of Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus continued to meet regularly at the Temple, where those animal sacrifices continued to be sacrificed as part of the daily liturgy for the whole nation of Israel.

Just because the early believers continued to participate in the sacrifice of animals does not PROVE the continued efficacy of those sacrifices to effect atonement. The early converts to Christ from among the Jews were "all zealous for the law". Doesn't mean they had everything "right".

So - it took the LORD some time to wean them away from the system of sacrifices. He finally allowed the Temple to be destroyed, and has prevented its restoration for almost 2000 years.

We don't read Paul telling the converts from the Gentiles to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the Feasts, or telling them that they need to be physically circumcised so that they can enter the Temple court to offer sacrifice. He tells them just the opposite.

In the same context, James says clearly, "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." (Act 21:25 NKJ)

So the converted Gentiles were exempt from sacrifice at the Temple.

Paul wrote:

ASV 1 Corinthians 9:20 "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;"

Paul did NOT consider himself "under the law", and he saw the Jews who were "zealous for the law" as "under the law".

The REASON Paul went up to the Temple mount to complete his vow, and pay for others also, was BECAUSE He wanted to be accepted by Jews, so that He could preach Christ to them -- NOT BECAUSE he personally thought it necessary to be purified through this means.

Personally - I believe Paul made a mistake in doing this, and the LORD allowed his missionary ministry to be severely limited thereafter.

Paul's one all consuming mission was to convince all men that the Christ had come, and though HIM all may receive forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[Ron Amnsn]

Is this the verse you are referring to?

Matthew 5:17-18 [Yeshua speaking] “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” (ASV)

He came “to fulfill” the Law.

Did He fulfill the Law? - Yes!

“He was obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8). So THAT was accomplished!! He fulfilled every duty to the Law. He can legitimately receive the promise of that covenant. We who have not perfectly obeyed, can still receive the promise - if we are part of His bride.

He came to accomplish everything that was written concerning His fulfillment of the Law.

Did He? If He was speaking of those things that were written concerning His incarnation - His life and death as a human being - then yes. He accomplished everything that was prophesied.

In English the word "fulfill" has two different meanings. The meaning you are using is like fulfilling a mortgage. If I fulfill my mortgage contract today, the mortgage contract is finished and I can burn it. The other meaning, which is the meaning of the Greek word in the text above, is like the daily fulfilling a marriage covenant. Marriage vows need to be fulfilled every day. If I fulfill my marriage vows today, I'm still married tomorrow and the covenant carries on. This is the way Jesus fulfills the Law.

Until "heaven and earth pass away". That hasn't happened yet.

Until "all things be accomplished". This hasn't happened yet either. Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that Messiah will sit on the throne of David forever. Has that been fulfilled?

The Law talks about the year of Jubilee (Lev 25, 27). Did Jesus fulfill the year of Jubilee? Has the year of Jubilee ever been fulfilled? As far as I know, there is no record of the Jubilee ever being carried out.

[Ron Amnsn]

Perhaps we could at least agree that AFTER the return of Christ in glory, the Law may be changed, allowing for “spiritual sacrifices” only in the coming kingdom of Messiah.

This is certainly a possibility.

However, people who believe this could be deceived by any false messiah who comes and declares changes to God's Law.

[Ron Amnsn]

We cannot deny it happened. The story was faithfully preserved in Acts Chapter 21, because it ended with Paul’s arrest.

Following the example of Jesus seems to involve being arrested. Jesus followed God's will perfectly, yet Jesus was arrested.

Jesus told us, "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:10-12) I believe this is true in Paul's case.

Jesus told us, "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake. It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony."

"But you will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death."

(Luke 21:12-13, 16) I believe this is true in Paul's case.

Jesus told us, "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you;" (John 15:20)

You seem to be insinuating that there was something wrong with Paul going to the Temple to offer sacrifices because it ended in Paul's arrest. We know that there wasn't anything wrong with Paul going to the Temple to offer sacrifices because what Paul did was totally in accordance with the Word of God recorded in Scripture; and also because soon after Paul's arrest the Lord himself commended Paul for what Paul had done in Jerusalem. (Acts 23:11)

It appears that you want to find fault with Paul going to offer a sacrifice at the Temple because his actions show that your man-made traditions are not in accordance with Scripture.

[Ron Amnsn]

At the end of his third missionary journey, many years after the Damascus road experience, Paul returned to Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost.

This alone should tell us that Paul was NOT faithfully following Torah law because the law commanded that every Israelite male be present at Jerusalem three time during EVERY YEAR. Paul had not been back to Jerusalem for 17 years.

The common interpretation among Jews today is that the Torah requirement to go to Jerusalem for the three yearly feasts applies to adult males who are living within the land of Israel. If that interpretation is correct, Paul would not be required to attend the Feasts while he was out of the country on his missionary journeys. There is some evidence in Scripture to support the Jewish interpretation.

For example, the prophet Daniel did not go to Jerusalem for the feasts while he was exiled in Babylon yet God told Ezekiel that Daniel was righteous (Ezek 14:14, 20). Also, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt until it was safe to return after the death of Herod. They apparently did not attend the feasts during this time. Also, David apparently did not go to the Tabernacle for the feasts while King Saul was pursuing him in the desert, yet David was not accused of breaking Torah.

Also, the Torah contains an exemption for celebrating Passover if a person is on a distant journey. (Num. 9:13) It does not explicitly make that same exemption for the other feasts, but it can be implied from the cases of men like Daniel, David, and Jesus.

If the Torah required Jewish men living outside Israel to go to Jerusalem for the three feasts each year, it would be a major problem for Jews living in exile. A person living more than a 22-day journey from Jerusalem would not reach home after Passover before they would need to head back to Jerusalem for Pentecost. A person living more than a 60-day journey from Jerusalem would not reach home between Pentecost and Tabernacles. A person living three months away from Jerusalem would never reach home between feasts. It would be difficult for a man living outside of Israel to grow and harvest crops if he was constantly on the road to Jerusalem.

Also, after Paul's arrest he was put on trial before the Sanhedrin. That trial concluded with some of the scribes of the Pharisees declaring "We find nothing wrong with this man." (Acts 23:9) The Sanhedrin was qualified and authorized to determine whether Paul was breaking the Law, yet they did not determine that Paul was guilty as you are accusing him. In the New Testament, it is always Paul's enemies who accuse him of breaking the Law, never the followers of Jesus (even though all the Jewish believers were zealous for the Torah). Are you an enemy of Paul? You are echoing what Paul's enemies said about him.

[Ron Amnsn]

The LORD had given him several warnings along the route. (See Acts 20:22-23, Acts 21:4, Acts 21:11.) But Paul was determined.

Jesus was also warned regarding what would happen to him when he went to Jerusalem to die. Does that mean that God didn't want Jesus to go to Jerusalem? No. From a human standpoint, that trip to Jerusalem had a negative impact on the ministry of Jesus, but it was still what God wanted to happen.

Jesus also gave several warnings that persecution will come to those who follow him. Does that mean that Jesus really doesn't want us to follow him? No.

If God didn't want Paul to go to Jerusalem, He could have prevented it, just as He prevented Paul from going into Bithynia. (Acts 16:6,7)

When you read the warnings about the trouble that would come to Paul in Jerusalem, it sounds like the warnings were to prepare Paul and the believers in various cities for what was ahead, rather than to actually dissuade Paul from going to Jerusalem.

[Ron Amnsn]

He had apparently taken a Nazarite vow, for which he had his hair cut off some weeks before reaching the City (Acts 18:18). (See Numbers 6:2,5,9,18.)

Acts 21:22-24 [James continues] “What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.”

Why did Paul do as the Elders directed?

 

You answered your own question. The Nazarite vow requires a person to go to the Temple to offer the prescribed sacrifice at the end of the vow. When Paul took the vow, many weeks before he arrived in Jerusalem, he was already planning to go to the Temple to complete the vow. At the request of the elders Paul made the completion of that vow into a group event so it would be evident to the whole congregation that there was nothing to the false rumors that had been circulating. By completing his own vow together with the four local devout men, it became an event that everyone in the local congregation would be aware of, and they would all know that Paul was not only keeping the requirements of the Law, but had gone beyond that by taking and completing the Nazarite vow which God had given for those who wanted to do something more.

Paul did choose to complete the vow with the four men as the elders suggested. Why then are you still believing the false rumors about Paul? Why is it that you do you not know what the elders said everyone would know regarding Paul, "that you yourself [Paul] also walk orderly and keep the law" ?

[Ron Amnsn]

Did he believe that the blood of animals really effected anything at all?

 

The New Testament doesn't tell us that Paul was believing anything different than what the Old Testament teaches regarding sacrifices, or anything different than what what Jesus taught: "but whoever keeps and teaches them [even the least of the instructions of the Law], he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19)

The passage does show us that Paul believed that the Nazarite vow was still valid, and that the sacrifices offered at the Temple were still valid, and that it was important to complete one's vow to God even if we know that doing so will result in personal harm.

 

Did he ignore the warnings sent by the LORD? Did he cross the line? Did he strike the rock twice?

When Moses struck the rock twice Moses was disobeying the Word of God, but when Paul went to the Temple to offer sacrifices Paul was obeying the Word of God.

After Moses struck the rock twice Moses received a rebuke from God (Num.20:12), but after Paul was arrested at the Temple Paul was commended and comforted by the Lord. (Acts 23:11)

If anyone has crossed the line, it is those who try to find fault with Paul for upholding and obeying the Word of God.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 Corinthians 9:20 “and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;”

In this passage Paul is describing how he becomes a slave to all the different groups. Some had taken a personal vow to keep the traditional oral laws of the Pharisees [or another sect] in addition to the Law of God that is written in Scripture. Some Gentiles do not yet know how to follow the Law of God.

In the next verse Paul says that he is under the Law of Christ. Christ is the one who gave the Law through Moses. The Law of Moses is the Law that Christ chose to live by wholeheartedly.

 

Paul makes it very clear that he did not consider himself “under the law” (Rom. 6:15).

Would that be the Law of God, or the "law of sin and death", or the man-made laws of the Jews, or the natural law that Paul talks about in Romans 6 that holds sinners as slaves to sin?

 

I think we must consider the possibility that Paul was going thru the motions, in order to dispel prejudice against the Gospel, from the Jewish community.

We do need to consider that possibility. But then we can also reject that possibility after examining the evidence throughout Acts and Paul's writings that shows Paul was not a man who "went through motions", nor was he a man who avoided prejudice when a principle was at stake. It was the man-made Laws of the Jews (not the Law of God) that created prejudice against the Gospel.

 

After all, in this same passage James repeats the consensus of the Jerusalem Council.

Acts 21:25 “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, [sacrifices at the Temple] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Again you have inserted your own ideas into the text. Most of the modern versions omit the phrase, "that they should observe no such thing" that is found in the KJV. But that doesn't mean that the KJV is wrong. It uses a different set of Greek manuscripts.

The "no such thing" could possibly refer to sacrifices at the Temple as you suggest, but that would disagree with other things written in Scripture. Notice the prophecy that Jesus quoted from as he cleared the Temple:

Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath, And holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.

Isaiah 56:6-7

I think this is a prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled.

There are several other things in the context that "no such thing" could refer to. We should choose one that doesn't make the statement disagree with the rest of Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that Gentiles should "walk after the customs" of the traditional man-made Jewish laws (mentioned in verse 21 as part of the false rumors that were circulating) -- except that two of the four commands that the Jerusalem council placed on Gentiles are based on traditional Jewish fence laws intended to guard specific Torah commands that apply to Gentiles living within Israel.

[Ron Amnsn]

Are you starting to see why some in the Messianic Community are teaching that Jews are still obligated to keep the sacrificial law, and Gentiles are not.

There are some things still taught in the Messianic Community that are based on tradition rather than on Scripture. Those from an Orthodox Jewish background usually try to maintain the traditions that keep a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers. Modern Jews seem to believe that the Torah was given to them as a means of maintaining Jewish identity, so they discourage Gentiles (who have not converted fully to Judaism) from observing Torah. There are a few Jewish (not Messianic) leaders on the extreme fringe who even teach that non-Jewish Sabbath-keepers should be punished for stealing the sign of Jewish identity.

[Ron Amnsn]

It is no wonder to me that the LORD allowed the Temple to be destroyed - just to end the confusion.

It is the Christians who came along after the destruction of the Temple and after the great apostasy that are confused. The early Jewish believers and the Gentiles who joined them in following Jesus were following God's instructions in Scripture as a result of being filled with the Spirit and because they were following the example and teachings of Jesus.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was a result of disobedience to the covenant that Israel has with God. For example, the Torah requires the leaders of Israel to uphold justice, but in the New Testament, every time the Jewish leaders were involved in a hearing, trial, or court case there was injustice, corruption, false accusations and false witnesses.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

Someday one of us will find out that he (or she)was wrong.

I do NOT believe that the sacrifice of dead animals still holds any value with our Father in Heaven. It was a temporary measure - an acted prophecy. His own Son has been offered "once for all". Animal sacrifice is NOT necessary for salvation. And by your teaching - it is not required for those living outside of Israel presently.

If someday - in the Kingdom of Messiah on this earth, the LORD commands that sacrifice be offered in order to teach "the nations" what our God has done for mankind - then I will be shown to have been wrong.

If someday, you learn that the "first" really was rendered "obsolete" when He established the New Covenant, then you will be shown to have been wrong.

I think we have each presented our best arguments.

Thank you for the discussion.

If you have comments on any of the OTHER laws (besides animal sacrifices or circumcision)- concerning how we might obey the spirit of those laws today, then by all means - do comment.

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Animal sacrifices did terminate at the death of Christ.

This is inaccurate. History shows that the animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem continued nearly four decades after the death of Christ until the Temple was destroyed by Titus and his army in 70 AD.

The book of Acts tells us that the followers of Jesus continued to meet regularly at the Temple, where those animal sacrifices continued to be sacrificed as part of the daily liturgy for the whole nation of Israel.

Animal sacrifice ENDED for 'Christians' at the death and Resurrection of Christ...

...Certainly animal sacrifices were still going on at the Jewish Temple.

...It ceased being 'worship'for the Christian however.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Animal sacrifice ENDED for 'Christians' at the death and Resurrection of Christ...

...Certainly animal sacrifices were still going on at the Jewish Temple.

...It ceased being 'worship'for the Christian however.

As according to scripture.

"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so 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 9:27-28 KJV

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Ron Amnsn]

What do these verses say to you?

Quote:

2 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away.14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2Cor. 3:12-18)

Hello Joe,

This passage is commonly interpreted out-of-context.

In short, those words mean that when a person turns to Messiah, the veil is removed that hides the glory of Jesus that is inherent in the Law of Moses.

Once that veil is removed for a person, the sensible response would be to become 'zealous for the law' as the original followers of Jesus were.