An end to sacrifices

[8thdaypriest]

Thank you Ron.  You have given us a good explanation of your understanding. 

I appreciate it very much. 

 

Could you just tell me again, in a few words, exactly WHAT "former commandment" you believe was "annulled", according to Hebrews 7 ? 

[8thdaypriest]

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".

But you do believe they will be offered during the millennial kingdom of Messiah.

Is that  right?

[8thdaypriest]

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.

Is it fair to say that you believe the "law" that was "abolished" was the "Oral Law" tradition of the Pharisees? 

 

The law which forbade the uncircumcised entry into the Temple court, came from the LORD Himself thru Ezekiel.

 

Ezekiel 44:7 "In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant." (NIV)

 

Ezekiel 44:9 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.'" (NIV)

 

Ezekiel wrote long after Isaiah.  If I was a Jew, reading this, I would think it a violation of Covenant to allow an uncircumcised man entry to the Temple Court.  I would have been afraid to allow them entry, lest Yahweh bring another destruction. 

 

Peter understood it to be "the law" that Jews NEVER could eat with, or have any voluntary social or business interaction with Gentiles  (Acts 10:28, Exo. 23:32, Exo 34:12, 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3,4; Deut 23:6).  That was the whole point of the vision on the roof.  "What I have cleansed, you must not call common (unclean)." 

 

From the Exodus, no uncircumcised man could partake of the Passover.  But Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation,  "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." 

He wrote to folks who were NOT physically circumcised.  They COULD NOT go into the Temple court, where the Passover lambs were killed, but they COULD partake of the Passover, by eating the "bread" and drinking the "wine".   But that would be commemorating the Passover in a new way. 

 

And I think that's the point in Ephesians 2:14-16. 

 

The wall around the Temple court was still standing when Paul wrote this letter about 60/61AD, while he was "in chains" (6:20).  THAT WALL would not come down until Titus destroyed the Temple and razed the City to the ground.  No uncircumcised man could enter that Court.  No point in making the journey to Jerusalem. 

 

But Paul says that Christ "has broken down the middle wall of division".  The RESULT is that both Jew and Gentile "have access" to the Father's Throne, thru Christ our Mediator. 

And THAT is the ONLY way that we come before the Father.  There is NO OTHER WAY.  "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6). 

 

“So, brothers, we have confidence to use the way into the Holiest Place opened by the blood of Yeshua.  He inaugurated it for us as a new and living way through the parokhet, by means of his flesh” (Heb 10:19-20 CJB).

 

This is a "new" way to come before God.  A "new way" to obtain forgiveness and justification.  It does NOT require a trip to Jerusalem, or an animal sacrifice. 

 

The glory of the LORD left the Temple of Solomon on the Day of Atonement years before it was physically destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek 10:18).  The glory NEVER RETURNED.  There was no glory in the Temple built under Zerrubabel (later enhanced by Herod).  The official High Priesthood in the days of Christ were Roman appointees.  They were not even descended from Levi.  Therefore, the ministry they performed on the Day of Atonement was UNACCEPTABLE to the LORD.  Israel's sins were NOT "cleansed" in the eyes of God.  Only a sinless Offering could take away their sins. 

 

Paul wrote,  "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes" (1Co 11:26 CJB).  He did NOT SAY, "when you eat this Lamb". 

We commemorate the Passover today in a "new way" - without an animal sacrifice.  Because we HAVE a perfect sacrifice. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Could you just tell me again, in a few words, exactly WHAT "former commandment" you believe was "annulled", according to Hebrews 7 ? 

 

In a few words:

No former commandment was "annulled" in Hebrews 7:18.  The requirement that was "set aside" is the one specified in Hebrews 7:16, "not on the basis of a law of physical requirement." (NASB)

 

The word translated as "commandment" (the one that is set aside) in verse 18 is the Greek word entoles, which is exactly the same word translated as "requirement"  in verse 16 in the phrase "the Law of physical requirement (entoles)". 

 

A footnote: The word entoles appears in just one other verse in Hebrews 7.  In verse 5 it appears in a different form in the phrase "the priest’s office have have commandment (entolen) in the Law (nomon) to collect tithe". All other words that refer to the law in Hebrews 7 are forms of nomos.

 

 

In many words:

 

The word "annulled" is not a good translation. Some of the translators have been influenced by the "falling away" that was foretold by Paul.  The NASB and some other English translations and interlinears use "set aside" instead of annulled. 

 

The word annulled means to permanently do away with.  In some cases, such as when a marriage is annulled, it means retroactively declaring that something that existed in the past has been declared non-existent both in the past as well as the future. I don't believe God tries to alter the past.

 

Hebrews 7:18 does not occur in isolation.  Jesus said that not a stroke of the Law (the books of Moses) would disappear until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished, so if you're a follower of Jesus and putting the most weight on what Jesus taught, I don't think you would even consider translating Hebrews 7:18 as "annulled", because that looks like you're trying to make Jesus a liar.  Also in Scripture God made promises to the Levites regarding the duration of the Levitical priesthood. If we try to apply "annulled" in a way that does away with the Levitical priesthood, we are making a liar out of God as well, and saying that God's promises can't be trusted.

 

On the other hand, if a law or requirement is set aside, it means that we're going to ignore that requirement in a certain case or situation, perhaps because the situation at hand does not match the original intent of the law, or it has been determined that the particular regulation has no jurisdiction in the situation at hand.

 

In the passage in Hebrews 7 the author first states that there is a change (with the connotation of a change of location) regarding priesthood (v. 12).  Then the author states that Jesus would not be qualified to be a priest under the Law given by Moses because Jesus is physically descended from Judah, not Levi (v. 13-14).  That requirement to be physically descended from Levi is the "Law of physical requirement" that the author of Hebrews says is not the basis of Jesus becoming a priest of the order of Melchizidek (v.15-16).  Then the author states that instead of "the Law of physical requirement", the basis for Jesus' priesthood is his indestructible life because the Scriptures say that Messiah is a priest forever of the Melchizedekian order (v. 16-17).  Then in verse 18 the author says the former requirement was set aside because of weakness and inapplicability (uselessness -- it can't be used in this situation).

[8thdaypriest]

In the passage in Hebrews 7 the author first states that there is a change (with the connotation of a change of location) regarding priesthood (v. 12).  Then the author states that Jesus would not be qualified to be a priest under the Law given by Moses because Jesus is physically descended from Judah, not Levi (v. 13-14).  That requirement to be physically descended from Levi is the "Law of physical requirement" that the author of Hebrews says is not the basis of Jesus becoming a priest of the order of Melchizidek (v.15-16).  Then the author states that instead of "the Law of physical requirement", the basis for Jesus' priesthood is his indestructible life because the Scriptures say that Messiah is a priest forever of the Melchizedekian order (v. 16-17).  Then in verse 18 the author says the former requirement was set aside because of weakness and inapplicability (uselessness -- it can't be used in this situation).

Good thought Ron.  I like that one.  That the requirement of physical descent from Levi was "set aside" for Jesus to become a priest forever. 

 

But you are talking like Jesus is the ONLY ONE to ever become a priest of a different "order". 

What about the 24 Elders?  What about all the people from the "first resurrection"?  They became/will become priests also.  And they are NOT all from Levi.

And they will "reign on the EARTH". 

 

But I can't agree the "weakness" was just physical weakness - the fact that Levite priests died. 

 

So, you don't think that it was WEAK because "the blood of bulls and goats" could not take away sin ?

 

The LORD "found fault with them" (the Levite priests) because they broke His covenant (they sinned),

and those sins could NOT be removed thru the blood of any animal. 

When Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of that "second ram" - the "ram of consecration" - they were entering into a blood covenant.

But they broke that covenant.

And no animal blood could wipe away their sin. 

 

THAT is why there had to come - another priest - one who NEVER SINNED.

 

God the Father raised His Son to eternal life, BECAUSE He never sinned.

It was His sinless life that resulted in His "endless life".

 

So it all goes back to the fact that the Levite priests sinned, and Yeshua did not sin.   

[8thdaypriest]

Aaron - the very first priest of the Tabernacle - was made priest AFTER he made an alter for the worship of the golden calf idol.

Talk about breaking Covenant!

He was only forgiven because Moses plead with the LORD on his behalf ( Deut. 9:20).

So not exactly a faithful beginning. 

 

 DNA descent is not necessary in order to be called a “son of Abraham” (only that one belong to Christ).

And I would contend that DNA descent is not necessary to be called a “son of Levi”, or a “son of Zadok”, or a “son of Phinehas”,

only that one belong to Christ (the faithful High Priest), whose priesthood really is forever.  

 

Jeremiah 33:22 says the descendants of the Levites would be like "the sand of the sea".  That's a whopping LOT.

That's far more than could have been direct DNA descendants. 

 

The forever priesthood is "by faith" - not by DNA descent.

 

Every person raised in the "first resurrection" along with those raised just after the LORD's own resurrection, will become priests. 

That means all of the redeemed from this age.  They were seen dressed in white (priests garb).

The eat the hidden manna (shewbread). 

They "serve Him day and night in His Temple"  (Rev. 7:9, 13-14).

Only priests entered the Temple.

 

I just don't think it's about DNA.  It's about faith (which results in faithful service). 

[Ron Amnsn]

But you are talking like Jesus is the ONLY ONE to ever become a priest of a different "order". 

What about the 24 Elders?  What about all the people from the "first resurrection"?  They became/will become priests also.  And they are NOT all from Levi.

 

The book of Hebrews is trying to explain the validity of the better priesthood of only one Messiah, so that's what I too was discussing.

 

The Hebrew believers to whom the book of Hebrews was written already accepted the validity of the priesthood of Melchizedek.  They would also accept the priesthood of the firstborn that was transferred to the Levitical priesthood.

 

As for Revelation, I think I'll leave the speculation to others for now.  When the time comes, God has the authority to create new priesthoods and to appoint new priests and to reassign previous priests to new roles.  However, I believe that God will completely honor the promises that God made to the Levitical priests.  After those promises are fulfilled I suspect that God will have honorable roles for the Levites to fill when God determines that the original roles assigned through Moses are no longer necessary.

 

The people to whom God made the original promises will be resurrected some day-- Abraham, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah, etc.  Those men will check to see that God has been faithful to the original promises.

[Ron Amnsn]

But you do believe they will be offered during the millennial kingdom of Messiah.

Is that  right?

 

I haven't found that the prophecies in the Bible are clearly labeled as to which ones refer to the millennial kingdom. The prophecy from Jeremiah 33 that I quoted earlier appears to have Levitical priests offering sacrifices during the same timeframe that Messiah sits on David's throne.  I believe that will be fulfilled at some point.

[Ron Amnsn]

I say that this Messiah the Prince (Dan (9:25) who was to come in the 70th week (27 AD-34 AD) is the same anointed one spoken of in the preceding verse.

Now you tell me if you believe the anointed one and the Messiah are the one and the same person, and if so, I ask you to name him.

 

I say it is Jesus who is to be cut off and dying not for Himself, but rather for you and for me. (Dan 9:26)

Now you tell me who you believe this person is.

 

I cannot vouch for your dates. You may correct, but I'm not convinced those dates are correct.

I agree with you on the identity of Messiah the Prince. That is Jesus.  He was Messiah because God anointed him, and the Prince because he was heir to the throne of David.

I agree that Jesus was the one cut off, but not for himself.

[Ron Amnsn]

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 is Jesus who shall confirm the covenant with many for one week (70th week) and being cut-off in the midst of the 70th week shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease. (Dan 9:27)

 

You skipped something that Daniel didn't skip.

After Messiah is cut off, but not for himself, Daniel shifts the focus to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by "the people of the prince who is to come". 

 

It is true that "people" is plural (in English), but if Daniel were to speak of the "prince who is to come", he would use a singular "he" just as Daniel did at the beginning of verse 27.  We'll need to examine more evidence to determine who the "he" is that confirms the covenant.

 

If verse 27 were written about a pagan Gentile prince, it would be a story of treachery and deceit.  First he confirms a "covenant" of some sort with many for seven years, but then when that period is only half over he reneges on that covenant and causes the sacrifices to cease. Later he is instrumental in destroying the city and the sanctuary. He doesn't sound like a trustworthy fellow at all.  In fact he has a number of characteristics in common with the vile person that Daniel describes starting in verse 21 of Daniel 11:

• his conquests are like "a flood"
• he makes an alliance but practices deception
• desecrates the sanctuary
• stops the sacrifices
• closely associated with abominations

Does the story improve if instead of a pagan Gentile prince we assume (without a shred of evidence) that Daniel reverted to talking about the Messiah in verse 27?  Not much.

 

Daniel would never have thought that the person who causes sacrifices to cease could possibly Messiah. Messiah was foretold to be a righteous person. Righteous people don't prevent God's priests from carrying out the commands that God gave them. Daniel was familiar with the prophecies of Jeremiah, where God confirms that the Levitical priests were expected to continue offering sacrifices as long as day and night continue.

 

If Daniel 9:27 speaks of Messiah, which covenant did Messiah confirm with many for only seven years?  Where did the New Testament writers record the fulfillment of that prophecy?

 

Does God make covenants that last only seven years?

 

If it was the "new covenant" that Jesus confirmed for seven years, why would he cause the sacrifices to cease in the middle of the seven years?  The promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 says that God will put his torah in the hearts of Judah and Israel, but you're saying that Messiah would prevent Judah and Israel from following God's Torah by causing the sacrifices to cease. The new covenant doesn't say anything about changing God's torah or changing the definition of sin. Rather, in the new covenant God says of Judah and Israel, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people," and, "they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." But it seems that you're trying to say that God confirmed that new covenant through Messiah by doing the opposite-- by condemning and permanently rejecting Judah and Israel.  How could that be any kind of a confirmation of the New Covenant promise?

 

Both History and the New Testament show that the sacrifices in Jerusalem did not cease during the time that Jesus was on earth, nor within 7 years of when he ascended. So if it was Messiah that was supposed to cause the sacrifices to cease in the midst of the seven years, Daniel's prophecy would get a "fail" because what was foretold did not come to pass.  God's Word says, "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken." (Deut 18:22)  Any false prophet can claim that the fulfillment of a failed prophecy was "spiritual" or that it happened "in God's eyes" even though it didn't happen in reality. God's Word doesn't allow us to accept that kind of explanation when what was foretold did not come to pass.  Why should we interpret Daniel's prophecy in a way that makes it turn out false and shows that interpretation "is the thing which the LORD has not spoken"?

[Ron Amnsn]

How would you interpret 2 Corinthians 3:4-11:

" Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God,  who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was,  will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor?  For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor.  Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it.  For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor."

 

I read it as saying the Law brings condemnation; and is fading from glory; while the Spirit's ministry of righteousness is permanent and more wonderful.

 

The Law does bring condemnation, which is a necessary and good function of the Law.  I believe that God's Law will still function very well in that purpose when unrepentant sinners arrive at Judgement Day. 

 

But the Law also has another purpose or function (also translated as "ministry", "dispensation", or "ministration"). The Law teaches us what righteousness living looks like. The Spirit's ministry of righteousness puts God's Law in our hearts and causes us to carefully live out God's righteous instructions.  God told the Israelites through Ezekiel, "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 26:2-27 NASB)

 

In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is responding to allegations that his credentials for ministry are not as valid as the written credentials of his detractors.  Paul responds by saying that the righteous living of those he mentored is better evidence of his being qualified by God to be a minister of the New Covenant.  The phrase "not of the letter, but of the Spirit" in verse 6 is usually misunderstood to be referring to the New Covenant.  But in the full context it is apparent that the phrase is actually referring to Paul's God-given competence contrasted with the credentials of his detractors.

 

A few verses earlier in the same context it says that Paul's own New Covenant ministry evoked both death and life, depending on the hearts of the hearers.  The same is true of God's Law.  Moses mentions both purposes or "ministries" of the Law, "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;" (Deut. 30:15)

 

For a clearer interpretation of Paul's passage in context, see the notes at 2 Corinthians 3 in Context.

 

[8thdaypriest]

My study "The End of Sacrifices" is finished, and is posted on my website. 

The study explains all of MY reasons for believing that the system of animal sacrifices, under the exclusive Aaronic priesthood was ENDED by God the Father Himself.

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

Here is the link to the study at my website. 

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The%20End%20of%20Sacrifices.pdf

[phkrause]

Here is an interesting "Jewish" perspective on Sacrifices!

 

What do We Sacrifice?

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/sacks/What-do-We-Sacrifice.html

 

ps:I hope this doesn't derail this thread, but I thought it was a very interesting article