An end to sacrifices

[Ron Amnsn]

I would give the words of Christ the MOST weight. 

 

I would too, after I'd tested them by the Old Testament to make sure Jesus was really the Messiah, and after interpreting all the words of Jesus in a way that would let him remain sinless as the Bible teaches that Messiah was. Jesus never said anything to detract from the religion taught by Moses in the Torah and He specifically taught that not a stroke would disappear from the Law (the books of Moses) until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished.

 

Apparently you aren't giving the words of Jesus the most weight though.  If you were, you'd be teaching the same as Jesus did.  You're giving more weight to the misinterpretations of Paul's writings and the traditions surrounding those misinterpretations.

 

Do you accept the words of God in the Old Testament as the words of Jesus?

[Ron Amnsn]

In John 2:17 after telling how Jesus drove the merchants from the Temple in Jerusalem it says, "His disciples remembered that it was written, 'ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.' "  (NASB indicate the quotation from Psalm 69:9 with all caps)  Do the followers of Jesus today remember that that Jesus was zealous for the Temple in Jerusalem? Is Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever?

 

Less than a week before He died Jesus drove the merchants from the Temple.  Mark 11:17 tells us, "And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’? But you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.” (NASB)

 

Obviously Jesus thought what was written by Isaiah in regard to the Temple in Jerusalem in the Old Testament was authoritative.  What else is written about the Temple by Isaiah?

 

Here is the prophecy that Jesus quoted from in Isaiah 56:
          6      “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;
          7      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.”
         8      The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
         “Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”
 

So less than a week before the Temple supposedly became irrelevant, Jesus endorses and quotes from Isaiah's prophecy about Gentiles coming to the Temple and offering acceptable offerings on the altar.  When would Isaiah's prophecy be fulfilled? if the middle wall of partition that kept Gentiles away from the Temple wasn't broken down until Jesus died, and the sacrifices also ceased to be acceptable when Jesus died, when would the Gentiles bring their animal sacrifices and pray in the Temple?

 

Then Jesus also quoted just one short phrase from Jeremiah 7:11 knowing that people would be familiar the rest of the passage, "Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” declares the LORD."  The rest of the passage in Jeremiah tells how God would destroy the first Temple because of the corruption in Jerusalem and in the Temple that had stood centuries earlier. The larger passage from Jeremiah suggests a rather obvious parallel between the fate of the first Temple and the fate of the second Temple.  But if we accept the message of the larger passage in Jeremiah, why don't we accept the message of the larger passage that Jesus quoted from in Isaiah 56 where it says that sacrifices will be acceptable on the altar?  Is that part of the passage not written in the Scriptures also?

 

[8thdaypriest]

 

23That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.

24For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. 25And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. 26If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age^k to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice.

27And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, 28so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him....Heb 9

 

I suppose then we only need to accept that Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all, He has appeared at the end of the age", was truely at the end of the age. While we might look at Jesus time on this earth, 2,000 years ago not at the end of the age, that doesn't appear as the way it is stated in Hebrews.

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

Peter, Paul, John, the author of Hebrews,

They all THOUGHT it was the end of the age.  They all THOUGHT Jesus would return during their lifetimes.  They were WRONG on that one. 

Yes, even the apostles had it WRONG.  And Jesus did not correct them.  If He had told them that it would be 2000 more years, it would have taken the wind right out of their sails.

 

The founders of the Adventist Church THOUGHT Jesus would return in 1844, and then within 7 years of 1844.  They were WRONG too. 

 

Of course we COULD look at things dispensationally, and divide history into seven different ages.

That would put us in the "Church Age" now.  Dispensationalism includes the theory of the secret rapture. 

I do NOT agree with dispensationalism.

[8thdaypriest]

Here is one from Ezekiel.  I will only quote parts of it.

 

Ezekiel 20:40-44  “All the house of Israel” - “all of them in the land” will serve the LORD GOD “on My holy mountain” (v.40).  “I will accept you as a sweet aroma” (v.41). “I will be hallowed in you before the Gentiles” (v.41).

 

So - the smoke from the burning sacrifices was called by the LORD a "sweet aroma".  In this passage the LORD says, "I will accept YOU as a sweet aroma." 

Now - I don't believe that literal human sacrifice will be part of the coming Temple, during the millennium. 

So the nature of the sacrifices offered must change in some way. 

 

Paul said that he was "poured out as a drink offering".  That was an offering made with a sacrifice at the Temple. 

 

All of the sacrifices prophesied in the OT could be understood to change FORM, in the coming Kingdom. 

The sin offering certainly DID.  Christ is my sin offering.

 

We have looked at passages which say clearly that I can be forgiven, and justified with God, WITHOUT ever presenting an animal for sacrifice. 

[8thdaypriest]

Isaiah speaks of “all your brethren” brought to the Lord “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD” (Isa. 66:20-22).  In these passages, living persons are presented to the LORD “as an offering.”  
    
    We are told to present ourselves, as “living sacrifices” to the LORD (Rom. 12:1).  

    I believe that Yeshua will present the redeemed to His Father - as His offering, just as He presented Himself as the “firstfruits” of the harvest, on the morning of His resurrection.

 

    The priests of God in the coming kingdom of Messiah on earth, will offer up “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5).  They will also teach the law, judge, settle disputes and administer justice (Mal. 2:7, Exo. 29:35, Lev. 8:33-35 & 9:1, Deut. 17:8-12, Deut. 21:5 & 33:8, Ezra 8:7-8, Eze. 44:23-24).   

    The Apostolic Writings give several examples of “spiritual” sacrifices:

    1. praise and thanks to God (Heb. 13:15),    2. our lives dedicated to God (2 Tim. 4:6),  
    3. the service of faith (Phil. 2:17),                  4. our bodies (Rom. 12:1),  
    5. gifts to the poor (Phil. 4:18),    
    6. visiting the sick or those in prison (Matt. 25:34-40),      
    7. offerings in support of the ministry (1 Cor. 9:13).

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

 

If a Temple is rebuilt on the Mount BEFORE Messiah returns in glory, will you go up there to present a sacrifice.

 

What if they won't let you into the courtyard, unless you deny Mohammed, and Yeshua (as the Christ).

What will you do then?  Will you deny Christ just to get into the courtyard?

[Ron Amnsn]

If a Temple is rebuilt on the Mount BEFORE Messiah returns in glory, will you go up there to present a sacrifice.

 

What if they won't let you into the courtyard, unless you deny Mohammed, and Yeshua (as the Christ).

What will you do then?  Will you deny Christ just to get into the courtyard?

 

If God brings me to Jerusalem when he regathers the scattered ones of Israel I will consider myself very, very blessed. If there are animal sacrifices occurring at the location of the Temple at that time, I will check it out.  I've never seen an animal sacrifice, even on video.  Currently the Jews are still letting Muslims and Christian tourists onto the mount. so we may be able to watch without being interrogated.  Or I could watch from somewhere overlooking the mount, like the Mount of Olives.  I wiould not try to lie or deceive in order to get into the Temple or the courtyard.  After I've had a chance to watch what happens with the sacrifices, I would compare what I saw with what is written in Scripture to see if it is Scriptural. If it is, I may ask if foreigners are allowed to offer sacrifices as spoken of in Isaiah 56.  If God prevents me from doing so as a follower of Yeshua (Jesus), then I would be content to wait until the situation changes.

 

Rachel, I am working my way through the thread answering the questions that have been put to me.  But you don't seem to be answering the questions that are put to you. You seem to have your own agenda. Until you start answering the questions that have been asked of you, Rachel, I will answer no more of your questions, unless I feel that a response would help others learn something about the Scriptures.  You keep asking questions about me, without answering the questions that are put to you.  You have lectured me about being loving. Are you even being fair?

[Ron Amnsn]

I would totally understand if the Jews chose to keep Christians away from the Temple area.  From a Jewish perspective, most Christians seem to have no comprehension of, nor respect for, anything that is holy according to Old Testament Scripture. 

[LifeHiscost]

Peter, Paul, John, the author of Hebrews,

They all THOUGHT it was the end of the age.  They all THOUGHT Jesus would return during their lifetimes.  They were WRONG on that one. 

Yes, even the apostles had it WRONG.  And Jesus did not correct them.  If He had told them that it would be 2000 more years, it would have taken the wind right out of their sails.

 

The founders of the Adventist Church THOUGHT Jesus would return in 1844, and then within 7 years of 1844.  They were WRONG too. 

 

Of course we COULD look at things dispensationally, and divide history into seven different ages.

That would put us in the "Church Age" now.  Dispensationalism includes the theory of the secret rapture. 

I do NOT agree with dispensationalism.

Neither do I see the Word as giving dispensationalism credibility, nor a secret rapture. However the Creator God Who sees a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years (IOW He's not restricted to linear time) would not be out of character to describe the end times to include both the times of the Apostles, as well as the times we ourselves live in as the end times. Having lived through WWII, it seems it could have been seen as the end times but we're still here.

I'm satisfied Jesus was born as a Babe, in our Father's eyes as in the end times. Just not as close as the final moments of time, which I'm excited to believe we are now experiencing, even to the point that it's possible Jesus coming could be within the amount of years we can count on one hand.

 

…20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;…Jude 1

 

…3While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;…1 Thess 5

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Aliensanctuary]

No one should argue against the Tabernacle in the days of Moses not being symbolic. With the absence of certain items in Ezekiel's Temple we might conclude that when the reality is present, the symbols are not needed.

 

If YHVH in one form or another is present in the Most Holy Place, there would be no need for the Ark of the Covenant which he used to communicate with Israel in bygone days. The Altar of Incense represented the storage and management of our telepathic "prayer" requests. The Seven-Branched Candlestick is, of course, a representation of the seven-part Spirit of YHVH.

 

What remains is the Table where YHVH will dine, the large Altar of Sacrifice (barbecue pit) in front of the Temple, and the rather large kitchen containing areas for slaughtering, boiling, and baking the sacrifices, tithes, and offerings. Whatever YHVH looks like we don't know, but he does eat animal blood and fat at the Table in the Holy Place according to the scriptures. Ezekiel's Temple is, in effect, a restaurant for YHVH to dine in. The blood of animals killed at the Altar of Sacrifice, an imposing 21 feet by 21 feet structure, is smeared on the altar and the posts at the entrance to the Temple.

 

Because sacrifices are offered at Ezekiel's Temple in the behalf of those transgressing YHVH's laws, we might conclude that this massively imposing structure will exist during the 1K year period when he rules the whole Earth, with the Restored Kingdom of Israel as his rod of iron. I don't believe that this Temple, with walls that are 10 feet thick, is constructed by humans, but is brought here from above, outer space, that is.

 

After this world passes away, those purchased by YHVH and transformed into obedient servants will not need to present sin offerings any more. The sacrifices and offerings given by his servants will be used as food for YHVH and others working in the Temple.

[8thdaypriest]

I scanned back thru all the posts on this thread looking for questions posted to me, from Ron.

 

Ron’s question:
Do you accept the words of God in the Old Testament as the words of Jesus?

Rachel answers:
I believe there is only ONE mediator between God and men.  That ONE has been the pre-incarnate Son of God our Father, the incarnate Son, and the glorified Son.  He acted and spoke as the agent of His Father, in creation and redemption.  While He was on earth, He said, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. (Joh 7:16 NIV)

So, I would say the words spoken to Israel of old, were the commands of God the Father, spoken thru His Son.  

 

I do not personally believe that our God is three co-eternal divine Beings.  I have joined in other threads at this forum on that topic.  If you want to read what I believe concerning that, there are studies at my website. 

 

Ron’s question:
Since Jesus taught that his words would not pass away, and that his disciples were to teach all nations everything that he had commanded,
and since Ellen White says that it was Jesus himself that gave Moses the precepts of the ritual Law, and that Jesus taught nothing that would unsettle faith in the religion and institutions that had been given through Moses,  why do SDA's teach that the religious practices (such as sacrifices) that Jesus commanded through Moses should no longer be practiced?

 

Rachel answers:

No man had authority to END something that God had commanded.   But God Himself, did have that authority. 

He is the One who allowed the destruction of the Temple, and has prevented it's rebuilding for almost 2000 years - far longer than any Temple of Yahweh stood. 

 

Hebrews 7:18 says that something has been annulled.  WHAT?  What was "set aside"? 

I believe it was the "former" remedy for sin. 

The covenant of 10 Commandments was NOT set aside.  In fact it will be written on the heart of every redeemed person.  That is why it appears in the heavens at the "great day of the LORD".  It is the standard by which all men are judged. 

 

IT IS THE "former" REMEDY FOR TRANSGRESSION OF THE COVENANT - that is what was "abrogated' - "set aside"  because it was "weak and unprofitable".  

It could not cleanse from sin, or justify, or make righteous the one who brought the sacrifice. 

 

KJV  Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

NIV  Hebrews 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

NKJ  Hebrews 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,

NRS  Hebrews 7:18 There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual

The author of Hebrews spends a lot of space explaining that the Day of Atonement sacrifice performed by a descendant of Aaron, COULD NOT cleanse Israel.  

It was "weak" and "unprofitable" because it COULD NOT accomplish what was needed - cleansing of the heart.   

Hebrews 7:19 "for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, (other hand would simply something OTHER than the sacrifices thru the Law)

there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. (NKJ) 

 

THAT "better hope" is the High Priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. 

 

It is the REMEDY that changed. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

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)

 

I believe that "heaven and earth" will "pass away" at the Second Coming. 

 

Mark 13:31  “Heaven and earth will pass away, . . .”  (Lk 21:33, Matt. 24:36).

 

    2 Peter 3:7, 10-12  “But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men . . .” “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.  Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?  Nevertheless we, according to His promise look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” 

 

Maybe we could agree that when the "heavens" pass away, then a "jot or a tittle" may pass away from the Law. 

 

There is a study at my website titled "Millennium" where I go over the last Trumpets and Plagues.  The devastation will leave nothing alive on the earth.  

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

The prophecies concerning the destruction of "earth" at the "day of the LORD", are found in the language of prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Babylonians.  They are dual prophecies - which have fulfillment in two contexts.  I could possibly understand Daniel 9:24-27 as a dual prophecy.  But that's not the subject of this thread.

 

I am looking for proofs that Hebrew Roots people could accept.  Daniel 9:24-27, and Colossians 2:14 are NOT ones that they could accept.  But you keep saying, "You have to take the ones I like."  Come on Jackson,  there are other proofs.  

 

How about "Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.  For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us (1Co 5:7 NKJ).

 

If Jesus Christ IS our Passover sacrifice, then the animal that was sacrificed in the Temple Court (for some 35 years after Jesus died) was NOT.

 

Not many people outside of the HR movement realize that when Jesus cleansed the Temple, He was removing the "level" from His "house" according to the Passover commandment.  

It was all to fulfill prophecy.  

 

Ron said that God never "changes". 

I agree with that, but if it was HIS plan all along to fulfill the prophecy of the Tabernacle/priesthood/sacrifices IN HIS SON, who became all three,

then replacing those symbols with the reality would not really be a change of His plan.  

 

I remember that Israel did NOT circumcise their sons during the 40 years of wilderness wandering when they were under the sentence of Yahweh.

But WHY NOT?  I don't remember reading any specific command of the LORD, telling them NOT to do this.  

And if they did NOT circumcise their sons, that would mean that they could not eat of the Passover.  

We just assume that the LORD told them, thru Moses, to suspend that rite for 40 years. 

 

Personally, I see current Israel (the redeemed people, not the political nation)

as wandering in the wilderness. 

We are not yet restored to "the land". 

Hence - the rite of circumcision is suspended for now.

When we cross the sky,

THEN Yeshua Himself will "circumcise the people", (when we receive new spiritual bodies and the old "flesh" is gone)

and THEN we will be ready to eat the Passover with Him, in His Father's kingdom. 

[Ron Amnsn]

I think all can agree theat Jesus was made High Priest of the Heavenly Sanctuary shortly after his ascension. That being so,  here, then is further confirmation that the earthly sanctuary ceased all relevance at Christ's death.

 

This of course makes perfect sense, for you can't have two high priests in two different sanctuaries officiating at the same time.

 

The author of Hebrews teaches that Jesus was already the high priest before he died because he was already officiating when he offered himself as a sacrifice.  Notice what is said in Hebrews 7:26-27

          26   For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

          27   who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

 

Of course that makes sense because the priests were involved in preparing the sacrifices for the altar, so Jesus was also involved as high priest in preparing himself for sacrifice.

 

The author of Hebrews actually puts the beginning of Jesus' priesthood much earlier than that.  In Hebrews 7 he emphasizes the point that Jesus was made a priest with an oath:

     20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

                  “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’ ”

 

When was that oath made?  The author of Hebrews quoted that passage from Psalm 110:4 which was already in the past tense when Psalms was written centuries before Jesus was born.  So Jesus was a priest forever starting sometime before Psalm 110 was written.  The author of Hebrews has no problem at all with both the priesthoods existing concurrently.

 

Also, the author of Hebrews says that Levi, who received tithes (as priests) essentially paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins of Abraham. (Hebrews 7:9-10) Of course, that is somewhat anachronistic, but if there was a problem with the Melchizedek priesthood existing concurrently with the Levitical priesthood, the illustration used in Hebrews about Levi (as one who received tithes) paying tithes to Melchizedek would never have been used.

 

Also, Hebrews 8:4 gives a specific reason why Jesus would not be a priest if he were on earth at the time Hebrews was written. "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;"

That was written in the present tense decades after the cross, and would make no sense if the functioning Levitical priesthood of the day were not operating concurrently with the heavenly priesthood of Jesus. 

 

Also, "the Law" regarding the Levitical priesthood is usually considered part of the man-made category called "ceremonial law" which many claim was "nailed to the cross" (a misinterpretation of Colossians 2:14).  Yet, here we are decades after the cross and the writer of Hebrews 8:4 is declaring that "the Law" which defines that priesthood is still valid enough to give the Levitical priests precedence for the priesthood on earth, concurrently with the better priesthood of Jesus in heaven.

 

After discussing the better priesthood of Jesus in the earlier chapters, Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."  That makes it sound like Jesus has always been a priest. So when Jesus was telling Moses how to instruct the Levitical priests to represent himself in the Tabernacle, Jesus was already a priest concurrently with Aaron.

 

Of course, it makes sense that there were two High Priests, one in heaven and one on earth because there were two Temples, one in heaven and one on earth.  These Temples and priesthoods are not in competition with each because each served a different purpose.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

The son of God was made "a priest forever".  Right? 

 

So what happens when He returns from heaven, and is now on the earth?

Will He then still be a priest. 

The passage in Psalm 110 (which could just as easily be a prophecy of what would take place in the future),

did not say "You are a priest forever in the Heavenly realm". 

It just said "a priest forever". 

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

I understand your desire to strengthen the believers in the Adventist message. 

[JoeMo]

Jackson,

Thanks for your previous post - it explains a lot.  I tend to agree with many of Rachel's ideas.  It kinda blows my mind that she and I have reached generally the same conclusions about so many things more or less independently of one another (I have modified some of my personal views based on her posts and PM's).  Sometimes I feel like we have studied together all along.  Her website is great.

 

Although I don't thoroughly agree with your position, I admire the way in which you approach it; and your openness to both sides of the story.

 

I also appreciate Ron's insight about the HR movement.  I don't agree with everything they teach, either; but I'm not smart enough to argue against their logic.

 

Blessings to you!

[Ron Amnsn]

The son of God was made "a priest forever".  Right? 

 

So what happens when He returns from heaven, and is now on the earth?

Will He then still be a priest.

 

Right.  That is why Hebrews talks about the change in the priesthood and that Jesus sacrificed just once.

Hebrews doesn't suggest that there were willy-nilly changes to God's perfect law. It actually specifies exactly what the change was.  In Greek the word "change" has the connotation of a change of location. And Hebrews tells us that because there was a change of location Jesus could be a priest in another jurisdiction even though he was of a different tribe than Levi. That doesn't change the priesthood on earth at all, nor does it change the Law at all for the earthly jurisdiction. God is true to God's Word, which shouldn't surprise us.  As Paul wrote in Romans 3:31 "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (NIV)

 

Because Jesus sacrificed just once, his priesthood doesn't interfere with the duties of the Levitical priesthood.at the Temple in Jerusalem. 

 

The passage in Psalm 110 (which could just as easily be a prophecy of what would take place in the future),

did not say "You are a priest forever in the Heavenly realm". 

It just said "a priest forever".

Does God state prophecies in the past tense? I don't think so. But I haven't checked them all out yet. I'll watch for that as I read through Scripture.

 

There is evidence that the two jurisdictions of the two different priesthoods are not based strictly on earth and heaven, but also on the "standing" or role that the different parts of the sanctuary represented.  When Melchizedek was priest, he was priest on earth but not in the Temple.  When Jesus offered himself, he too was on earth, but not officiating at the Temple.   In fact, when the true lamb was offered on the true altar in the true courtyard of the true heavenly sanctuary that true courtyard of the heavenly sanctuary included a hill outside Jerusalem.  Jesus didn't ascend to heaven to get slain again on the true altar in heaven.

 

But when Jesus was done with the "just once" sacrifice role of his priesthood and at his ascension entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary, then the Most Holy place has "standing" because Jesus has entered the role represented by the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. The altar in the true courtyard no longer had "standing" for offering sacrifices and the better priesthood was done offering sacrifices in the true courtyard (on the hill outside Jerusalem) because that happened just once.

[8thdaypriest]

I believe that Yeshua had to suffer as a human being, BEFORE He could become our perfect High Priest.

Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (NKJ).

Hebrews 5:2 “He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness” (NKJ).

There are words in Hebrews Cpt 7 that convey the idea of His priesthood arising - as if it did NOT exist before.

I am not convinced that the Son of God was High Priest before His incarnation and resurrection, AND 7 day consecration AFTER His ascension.

Hebrews 7:11 “If perfection were through the Levitical priesthood . . . what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek” . . . (v.12) “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”  (V.18) “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect (NKJ).

 

It was not just a "change of location".  Something was annulled. 

What was annulled? 

I believe it was the role of the exclusive Levitical priesthood. 

 

If everyone from the "first resurrection" will become "priests of God and of Christ", to what order will they belong?  Would it not be the order of Melchizedek? 

But Melchizedek was a priest ON THIS EARTH.

 

The 24 elders say that the LORD has "made us kings and priests" . . . And we shall reign on the earth". 

These 24 elders are NOT ALL LEVITE.  They are "redeemed . . . out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation".

 

Would they not also be of the order of Melchizedek, with Christ is their High Priest? 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I had a couple more thoughts on this subject.

If the "change" of the priesthood was a "change of location" (as Ron suggested)

 

THAT would mean that the priesthood was moved to the heavenly realm.

 

But THAT would mean that the earthly Levites were no longer the priesthood, in the eyes of the LORD

BECAUSE they were in the same location. 

 

Ron said that he believes the Son of God was always a high priest - from eternity.

If the Son of God was a priest before His incarnation, during His incarnation, and since His incarnation,

THAT would mean that nothing concerning the priesthood was "changed".

If there has always been a parallel priesthood - one in heaven, and one on the earth,

then nothing changed.

 

But Hebrews says "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law".  

So - something to do with "the priesthood" was "changed" by the Yahweh Himself.  

[Ron Amnsn]

I had a couple more thoughts on this subject.

If the "change" of the priesthood was a "change of location" (as Ron suggested)

 

THAT would mean that the priesthood was moved to the heavenly realm.

 

But THAT would mean that the earthly Levites were no longer the priesthood, in the eyes of the LORD

BECAUSE they were in the same location. 

 

Ron said that he believes the Son of God was always a high priest - from eternity.

If the Son of God was a priest before His incarnation, during His incarnation, and since His incarnation,

THAT would mean that nothing concerning the priesthood was "changed".

If there has always been a parallel priesthood - one in heaven, and one on the earth,

then nothing changed.

 

But Hebrews says "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law".  

So - something to do with "the priesthood" was "changed" by the Yahweh Himself.  

 

Rachel,

 

When you quote from Hebrews, you'd do better if you looked at larger pieces than a single thought. You're focusing on just this, "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law." That thought is part of a paragraph. If you read the whole paragraph, the author explains specifically what change is necessary and why it is necessary, and then confirms again in the next chapter why that change was required by the Law. (Hebrews 8:4)

 

That thought that you like to quote from Hebrews 7:12 is also part of the Bible.  If you read the whole Bible in context, the Author explains the duration of the Levitical priesthood so clearly that you would not entertain any thoughts about it becoming obsolete or abolished or replaced.

 

Remember what happened in Numbers 3 when God himself officiated over the change of the priesthood from the firstborn of Israel to the Levites and family of Aaron?  That's the kind of change of priesthood that you want Hebrews 7:12 to be talking about -- you want it to be a total change where those who were previously priests lose their place as priests and those who had previously not been priests started being priests. 

 

If you look at Numbers 3 you'll see that in a total change of priesthood such as that, God very carefully counted the number of firstborn that belonged to him, and carefully counted the number of Levites that would be replacing those firstborn, then God required a payment/ransom of 5 shekels in money to redeem each of extra firstborn that were not being replaced by a Levite.  Do we see that kind of total change of priesthood happening in Hebrews 7?  When did God officiate over such a total change? When were the priests and Levites counted?  How much money was collected to pay the ransom for the priests that were being replaced? When did God announce such a total change?  He never did. In fact God announced and covenanted ahead of time that he never would make such a total change.

 

After that change of priesthood in Numbers 3, God made a covenant with Aaron's grandson Phinehas and his descendants.  "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. Therefore say, 'Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.'" ( Numbers 25:10-13 )

 

Long after the priests went astray, and long after the priest Eli was told that his branch of the descendants of Aaron would no longer have priests, God reconfirmed his covenant with the Levitical priests. It was while the Babylonians were besieging Jerusalem and about to destroy Solomon's Temple that the prophet Jeremiah received this message:

Jeremiah 33

14  'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

15  'In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth.

16  'In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.'

17  "For thus says the LORD, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;

18  and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'"

19  The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,

20  "Thus says the LORD, 'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time,

21  then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.

22  'As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'"

 

Some things to notice about this prophecy:

• It is a prophecy about Messiah, so it must be fulfilled. When Jesus met with his followers after the resurrection he told them, "all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)
• When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary he told her that Jesus, "will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;" (Luke 1:32)
• The LORD foretold through Jeremiah that Messiah would sit on the throne of David, but that hasn't happened yet. 
• The throne of David has been empty longer than the Levitical priesthood has been prevented from offering sacrifices.
• The promise that the Levitical priest would offer burnt offerings and prepare sacrifices is in the same sentence with the promise that David would always have descendants to sit on the throne.
• God's covenant with the day and night is part of God's covenant with Noah and the animals found in Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."
• God's covenant with day and night has not been broken, so his covenants with David and with the Levitical priests are still valid as well.
• The only condition that God states for the continuation of the covenants with David and the Levitical priests is that day and night continue.

There is more evidence in the Bible that the Levitical priesthood endures.  When people argue persistently that God has reneged on his covenant with the Levitical priests, the underlying message that comes through clearly is that they believe God's Word is not reliable.  That's the same deception that Satan used when tempting Eve.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ephesians 2:14 definitely says that the LORD has "abolished" a "law contained in ordinances".  

 

What Ephesians 2:14 actually says was abolished was "the enmity".  Which of God's statutes, commands, ordinances, or instructions created enmity between Gentiles and Jews?  None that I can find.

 

That's why the author of Hebrews says, "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances"  Like in Colossians 2:14, in Ephesians 2:14-15 the word translated as "ordinances"  is the Greek word dogmasin, a form of the Greek word dogma.  Neither dogmasin nor dogma (in any of its various forms) is ever used to refer to any of God's instructions, ordinances, statues, or commands in the Greek Old Testament that was in use when Ephesians was written. Not once.  Every time dogmasin or any form of dogma appears in the Greek Old Testament it refers to man-made decrees, laws, or documents.  If Paul wanted to refer to any of God's ordinances, commands, or instructions, he used the wrong word.  We know that Paul knew the right words to use for God's ordinances because he used the right words in other passages.

 

The "Law of commandments contained in man-made laws" would be referring to exactly what it says-- man-made laws masquerading as if they were the commandments of God.

 

Where in God's Word did God instruct the Israelites to construct the middle wall of partition?  I haven't found it yet.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

When do you see an end to animal sacrifices? 

 

Do you believe that redeemed Israel will continue to drag bleating, terrified lambs before an alter in the "new earth" to slit their throats and watch them bleed out.  Do you really BELIEVE that our God and His Son WANT this?

 

The people of God will stop sacrificing animals, when God actually instructs them to stop following the instructions that God gave through Moses.

 

I don't think I have said anything about animal sacrifices occurring in the "new earth".

[Ron Amnsn]

... to keep sacrificing animals in the temple below while our High Priest has already brought His blood to the temple above is an insult to His mediatorial work.

Can you please show us where the Bible says that any of the animal sacrifices that happened after the death of Jesus in the Jerusalem Temple were "an insult to His mediatorial work."

 

As far as I can tell, the notion that God or Jesus could be "insulted" by obedience to God's Word was invented by the theologians of the Roman church and handed down to us.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, suffer me to take you through Dan 9:24-27 once more and ask you some questions along the way.

 

Here again is Dan  9:24

Dan 9:24 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. 

9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 

9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. 

 

I say it was Jesus who was anointed The Most  Holy at his baptism in 27AD

Now you tell me who you believe it was..

 

I don't find any mention of an anointing taking place at the baptism of Jesus.

 

I do believe that most of the things mentioned in verse 24 were things that Messiah would accomplish for Israel, because they are not things that the Israelites could accomplish for themselves. I believe that those things were successfully accomplished for Israel by Jesus as their representative, Messiah, and King.

 

Many people teach, as you alluded to earlier, that the 70 "weeks" of verse 24 defined a probationary time for Israel wherein they must accomplish certain things or else lose their covenant status with God.  Can you tell us what it would have looked like in real life for the Israelites to accomplish each of the "probationary" items listed in verse 24?  I've asked that several times here, but no one has ever answered. 

 

The idea that Daniel 9:24 sets out a final probationary time for Israel is contrary to both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

The covenant that God made with Israel was ratified at Sinai. That covenant specifies consequences for Israel if they disobey the terms of the covenant.  But none of those consequences include any threat of the covenant being annulled.  Individual Israelites could be "cut off from their people" and lose their individual place in the covenant.  But as a nation there was no option to get out of the covenant. As the apostle Paul says, "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom. 11:29)

 

The teaching that Daniel 9:24 is probationary with new consequences for Israel's non-compliance would have us believe that God adds new conditions to an existing covenant that was previously ratified. Paul specifically says that can't be done, even with human agreements. "Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it." (Gal. 3:15)  Those who believe that Daniel 9:24 specified a final probationary period for Israel, apparently believe that God changes the terms of his covenants after the fact, and therefore God's solemn Word cannot be trusted.  Will God change the terms of the new covenant a few centuries after the redeemed arrive in heaven?

 

God's word teaches that God will be true to his covenants for his own name's sake.

 

In Romans 9:4 speaking in the present tense of the unbelieving Israelites, the apostle Paul says, "who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises."  So those who teach that God's covenants with Israel are no longer valid, seem to be teaching a different gospel than the gospel taught by the apostle Paul.