Menu

'Renew animal sacrifices on Mount' says radical rabbi

S
sermonindex


[b]'Renew animal sacrifices on Mount' says radical rabbi[/b]

Member of Sanhedrin says sacrifices 'were not possible when the people of Israel were in the Diaspora, but now they are.' Adds: Jerusalem Temple should be rebuilt, Israeli government standing in our way

Animal sacrifices should be renewed on the Temple Mount, a member of the radical Sanhedrin organization told Ynetnews.

In ancient Israel and Judea, the Sanhedrin served as the highest court in the land, and was made up of 71 top judges. Now, a group of

fringe rabbis say they have reformed the group, although the organization has received no recognition from Israel's official religious authorities.

"In the Torah there are around 200 commandments dealing with animal sacrifices," said Rabbi Dov Stein, of the Sanhedrin organization. "The Torah of Israel demands animal sacrifices. When the people of Israel were in the Diaspora, it couldn’t be done. But now, there is the supreme institution, the Sanhedrin, made up of experts, and it can be done. The new Sanhedrin, like the old, will educate the people of Israel on how to keep and safeguard the Torah."

read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3371508%2C00.html

P
philologos

"On 17 July (AD70), as the Romans prepared for an all-out assault on the Temple, the priests were forced to suspend the Tamid, the daily sacrifice of a lamb, the fresh supply of victims having finally given out." Apocalypse; the Great Jewish revolt against Rome AD 66-73. (ISBN 9780752425733) Neil Faulkner page 336I think there was an attempt to restart the Temple sacrifices in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba]bar Kokhba revolt[/url] of 132-135 but there would have been no altar and no holy place.

Does anyone know how these ultra orthodox Jews think to reconsecrate a priesthood? Aaron was consecrated by Moses and each successor high priest by his predecessor but as no clean priests remain to recommence the process and no red-heiffer dust has survived I don't understand what scenario they have in mind to re-start Temple worship.

C
ChrisJD

Brother Ron,

as to the Red-Heiffer, I used to follow these things somewhat and I remember an anouncement some time back that they had a red-heiffer. Don't know what became of it as I haven't taken notice of these things in some time. I think there is an institute of sorts that is devoted to the research and production of all the nescessary things for the Temple and its service, and you might find something out from them. I remember seeing all sorts of reproductions of itmes for the service of the Temple they had made in anticipation of this, which they had pictures of on their website.

Chris

J
JaySaved

For what it is worth...

The New Testament is clear on what constitutes the Temple of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

If a Jewish Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem it will not be because God wants the Jews to begin animal sacrifices again.

Hebrews 10:12-14
"But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

A rebuilt Temple is just one of many parts of Dispensationalism that makes we cringe.

P
PreachParsly


ChrisJD wrote:
Brother Ron,

as to the Red-Heiffer, I used to follow these things somewhat and I remember an anouncement some time back that they had a red-heiffer. Don't know what became of it as I haven't taken notice of these things in some time. I think there is an institute of sorts that is devoted to the research and production of all the nescessary things for the Temple and its service, and you might find something out from them. I remember seeing all sorts of reproductions of itmes for the service of the Temple they had made in anticipation of this, which they had pictures of on their website.

Chris

http://www.templeinstitute.org has a lot of info.


http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm Here are photos one one that they thought to use, but later disqualified it.

S
sermonindex

The New Testament is clear on what constitutes the Temple of God.

Well, these rabbi's arent concerned with the NT says. We, as Christians, should look on this (reinstating the sacrifices) as a wonderful fulfillment of yet another prophecy... letting us know that Yeshua is coming soon.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

Maybe countries who have animals infected with Mad Cow disease and birds with Bird Flu can be flown in to burn on the alter. It would save alot on polluting the land and the water.

The cross is our alter and Jesus Christ is our sacrifice, and we are the Temple of the holy Ghost. What they do over there has nothing to do with holiness, righteousness but pure 100% unbelief!

J
JaySaved

We, as Christians, should look on this (reinstating the sacrifices) as a wonderful fulfillment of yet another prophecy

Which prophecy would that be? 2 Thessalonians 2?
"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

I already quoted verses in scripture that tell us that God refers to His temple in the NT as the church and believers. Also Jesus says in John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body."

Also, Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-21, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:"

C
ChrisJD

Hi Jaysaved,

In regards to the passage in 2nd Thessalonians, I have some difficulty imagining what is implied here because, for instance, of what the Lord says in Matthew 12:28 and 29. What do you think?


Chris

P
philologos

ChrisJD on 2007/3/19 20:11:25
I used to follow these things somewhat and I remember an anouncement some time back that they had a red-heifer. Don't know what became of it as I haven't taken notice of these things in some time.

We have discussed the red heifer from time to time on these forums. “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb 9:13-14 NKJV)The reference is to a particular form of the sin-offering which seems to have been designed for Israel-on-the-move; the record isn't in Leviticus with the rest of the ceremonies but is given in the book which details Israel's wanderings - Numbers. It seems to have been used to cleanse from ritual uncleanness, particularly when acquired through contact with dead bodies. (Nu 19) The catch-22 issue however is that the people of Israel were to bring a red heifer to Aaron, the high priest and Moses. These two then commissioned another priest to conduct the sacrifice. The priests of course had to be 'clean'. The heifer was killed and its blood sprinkled towards the tabernacle seven times, as per the pattern for the sin offering of the Day of Atonement. The carcase was burned. Other ingredients were added to the flames. A 'clean man' (19:9) then collected the combined ashed and kept them safe outside the camp for emergency use. It was a form of sin-offering; “And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: it is a sin-offering.”
(Num 19:9 ASV)When ceremonial pollution took place the effect of the sacrifice was reconstitued by the application of running (Heb: living water) and sprinkled upon the unclean man.

The rub is that you need a 'clean man' to conduct this ceremony. If any properly prepared red heifer ashes were available you could use them to 'cleanse' a defiled priest. The problem is that all the descendants of Aaron are now 'unclean' so they can't prepare any red heifer ashes and there are no red heifer ashes available to cleanse a priest; a real catch 22!

The original priests Aaron and his sons were consecrated by Moses but the succession has broken down. It would take a new Sinai to recreate a functioning Aaronic priesthood but in the meantime even if we were able to get a red heifer with no white hairs we have no priest to sacrifice to recreate the 'red heifer' ashes.

P
philologos

KrispyKrittr on 2007/3/19 21:29:46
We, as Christians, should look on this (reinstating the sacrifices) as a wonderful fulfillment of yet another prophecy...

But this would be a fake priesthood unless another Moses comes to reconsecrate the sons of Aaron.

S
sermonindex

But this would be a fake priesthood unless another Moses comes to reconsecrate the sons of Aaron.

I agree... 100%. I was not saying it would be authentic. Just that it would be another sign.

Krispy

J
JaySaved

The original priests Aaron and his sons were consecrated by Moses but the succession has broken down. It would take a new Sinai to recreate a functioning Aaronic priesthood but in the meantime even if we were able to get a red heifer with no white hairs we have no priest to sacrifice to recreate the 'red heifer' ashes.

This has me thinking...I am so thankful that I don't have to be cleansed by animal sacrifices and a priesthood. Praise the name of Jesus Christ! I think the Jews just need to accept Christ and forget this temple business. :-D

C
ChrisJD

Hi Ron, thanks for the insights into this offering.


"When ceremonial pollution took place the effect of the sacrifice was reconstitued by the application of running (Heb: living water) and sprinkled upon the unclean man."

Brings to mind John 7:38.


"The original priests Aaron and his sons were consecrated by Moses but the succession has broken down."

I've read that in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD that the genealogical records were destroyed. Do you know if that is true and if it bears upon their even being able to know who is a descendant of Aaron at ths point?

Going on with that thought for a moment, two passages of scripture have stood out to me in view of those events in history and of the appearance of the Lord Jesus at that very time in history, which, maybe even to an unbiased observer might appear to give strong testimony to the truth of His claims. One is from the very ancient prophecy of Jacob concerning Judah and his posterity, where he says

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."


I once had the opportunity to share my faith in the Lord Jesus as Messiah with an orthodox Jew that I met here in the city. I was walking by handing out some cards I'd made and he invited me to sit with him as he was at an outside cafe of sorts. We had a very cordial conversation and I shared with him this passage and how remarkable I thought it was, that the Lord Jesus was of the line of David, and of Judah, and how we understand Him to be the King that now reigns, and how since His time there has been no one else to sit upon David's throne.

And this then is in connection with another passage that appears to have the same force in pointing us to the fulfillment of these things in the Lord Jesus, where the Psalmist says


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah."

and also...

"Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."

And though the psalmist complains that it appeared as though God had not fulfilled this, saying

"...thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground."

It has been nearly 2000 years that the people of Israel have been without an earthly king and isn't this a strong declaration that the King has already come?

Chris

I
iansmith

I'll have my brisket with a side of corn bread and baked beans.

P
philologos

An earlier thread on this topic can be found in [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1212&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Propitiation and the Red Heifer.[/url]

As the thread wore on it became a little convoluted but you may be able to pick your way through the wreckage! ;-)

P
philologos

I'll have my brisket with a side of corn bread and baked beans.

Not with a sin-offering you won't! ;-) Unless you like things very 'well done'. The portion that was not burned on the altar was burned outside the camp.“For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach.” (Heb 13:11-13 NKJV)

L
lovegrace

I think JaySaved is very accurate in his teaching on this.

Why would God go BACK from what He started? Why would God go back to a MAN-MADE temple, when He CHOSE US (People/Human beings) to be His temple?

I don't see how twisting Scripture, saying that the Jews will reinstate animal sacrifices is biblical.

A Jew should know then that if the animal washed away sins and not God then for over 1900 years their sins have been on their people. And not to mention NO ONE would endource this because the thought of animal sacrifice would be UN-Humane.

I don't think any nation would endource an 'animal sacrifice' no matter what nation is doing it. (I'm referring to powerful nations, US, UK, UN and such)

S
sermonindex


Hi Chris,

I'm sure you'll make something of the Red Heifer thread. It's good.

...and unto [u]him[/u] shall the gathering of the people be."
Here is a parallel statement to consider:

Exodus 19
Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [i]how[/i] I bare you on eagles' wings, [u]and brought you [b]unto myself[/b][/u].

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for [u]all[/u] the earth [i]is[/i] mine:

G
ginnyrose

Chris wrote:

I once had the opportunity to share my faith in the Lord Jesus as Messiah with an orthodox Jew that I met here in the city. I was walking by handing out some cards I'd made and he invited me to sit with him as he was at an outside cafe of sorts. We had a very cordial conversation and I shared with him this passage and how remarkable I thought it was, that the Lord Jesus was of the line of David, and of Judah, and how we understand Him to be the King that now reigns, and how since His time there has been no one else to sit upon David's throne.

Chris, what was the rabbi's reaction to your exposition?

ginnyrose

C
ChrisJD

Hi ginnyrose, sorry for the delay in reponse.


"what was the rabbi's reaction to your exposition?"


I can't say much from recollection except that I don't recall him disputing or saying anything contrary to it. He was asking questions and politely listening. Very nice. And just to clarify, I think he was a [i]lay person[/i] not a rabbi or teacher but I don't recall for sure. I do recall him being orthodox though.

I feel a sense of appreciation for the Jewish people and it made me happy to speak with him.


Thanks for the interest, :-)

Chris

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
The New Testament is clear on what constitutes the Temple of God.

Well, these rabbi's arent concerned with the NT says. We, as Christians, should look on this (reinstating the sacrifices) as a wonderful fulfillment of yet another prophecy... letting us know that Yeshua is coming soon.


You are right Krispy, even though the [i][b]Antichrist[/b][/i] is probably coming first! 2Thess 2 is indeed the relevant passage.

Either way its one more fulfillment of prophecy, and one step nearer the Return of the true Christ (unless the full Preterist position is true and the Second Coming has already happened!)

Of course one could possibly spiritualise the whole thing and believe that the Antichrist spirit will enter completely into [i]the Church itself [/i], or maybe an individual Christian(i.e. a "temple of God"), or one who seems to be a Christian, in a similar way that it says Satan entered into Judas, who was one of the Twelve, and probably did miracles, and certainly preached in the name of Jesus.

Of course, a rebuilt , man-made Temple won't actually be a true "Temple of God". But remember that the temple Jesus cleansed, in the Gospel account, was actually [i]Herod's[/i] temple. It was neither built by a true Israelite nor according to the pattern revealed to Moses and David. Yet Jesus said:

John 2:16 [color=0000CC]And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make [i][b]My Father’s house[/i][/b] a house of merchandise!”[/color]

It was neither a proper OT Temple, nor built by God's people, nor the true spiritual Temple, yet Jesus still called it "my Father's House"!!!

I therefore think it quite likely that the Temple will be rebuilt as a man-made structure, and the sacrifices restarted - futile though they are since Jesus died. Even though, like Herod's Temple, it will be neither a true House of God nor contain the Presence of God in the form of the Ark of the Covenant.

I don't know what they will do about the priests, since the genealogies were destroyed. I have heard that, in modern synagogues, they ask all those of the name of Cohen (meaning "priest) to stand and bless the people.

It wouldn't be ideal, but maybe they will think it better than nothing?

Jeannette

J
JaySaved

Of course one could possibly spiritualise the whole thing and believe that the Antichrist spirit will enter completely into the Church itself , or maybe an individual Christian(i.e. a "temple of God"), or one who seems to be a Christian, in a similar way that it says Satan entered into Judas, who was one of the Twelve, and probably did miracles, and certainly preached in the name of Jesus.

Please allow me to discuss 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 for a moment:

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”

Paul says that the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him (the day of Christ)” will not happen until there is a “falling away” first. This falling away is in regards to the church. Paul is saying that an apostasy is coming in the church and many professing Christians will turn from the truth.

Then Paul says that the ‘man of sin’ will be revealed. Notice that Paul called the man of sin the ‘son of perdition’? Who else was called a ‘son of perdition’? John 17:12: “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

Who is Jesus referring to? Judas. Judas was a disciple of Christ in Jesus’ inner circle but was a false brother. Paul is clearly connecting the ‘man of sin’ with Judas. Paul is not saying that Judas will return and exalt himself, but that the ‘man of sin’ will be like Judas in that he will be in the church. Paul also says that this man of sin will exalt himself above God.

This man of sin is a greater manifestation of what was already at work in the church. This “spirit of antichrist” was already at work during John's time. He says in 1 John 2:18-19, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Who is John referring to? False believers in the church. Here is one example John gives in 3 John 1:9, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” Also, Paul, Peter and Jude spend much time discussing False Teachers.

Paul then says about the ‘man of sin’, “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”

This ‘man of sin’ will be in the “spirit of antichrist” and the “mystery of iniquity”. Paul says “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way” The spirit of antichrist was already at work in the church during Paul’s and John’s life. This spirit was in the form of false teachers in the church “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17-18)

Paul says that this spirit of iniquity and antichrist is already in the church but is restrained. What or who is the restraint? Many Christians differ on this. Some think it is the Holy Spirit who will be removed during the rapture, but I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit acts as a restraint against sin, but often is ignored when one slides away from closeness with God. Also, remember Stephen. Stephen was full of the Spirit and all it got him was death. If he had not had the spirit they would have left him alone. So, I do not believe Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit, I believe Paul is referring to the Roman Government.

Edgar Parkyns says in his study of Church History that persecution is God’s instrument to purify His church. For example, when there is no persecution, people who are not sincere will rise into leadership and teach false doctrine. But, when persecution comes, these people are the first to leave. Those who remain in persecution are true followers of Christ and the church is pure. So, I believe that Paul is referring to the Roman government as “him who restrains”. Paul says this restraint will be removed and when it is removed the man of sin will be revealed. Has anything like this happened in history? Yes it has. It is just that we do not want to see it. When the Roman pagan government fell, the persecutions stopped. In fact, the Roman government adopted Christianity as its state religion. You might think this was a good thing but it was not. People were forced to join the church, up until this time a person entered the church through belief, now people are joining for gain. Eventually a "man of sin who exalts himself above God" entered the church in the position of Pope. I know it is unpopular to say that the office of pope is the antichrist/man of sin but what else can a true believer make of it?

Why do I say the antichrist to come is an office and not a particular man? Because 'man of sin' can refer to more than one person just as 'man of God' refers to all Christians. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Brothers and sisters, Paul is not telling us to look for a leader of a revived secular roman government, he was telling the church at Thessalonica that they have not missed the coming of the Lord because the man of sin has not appeared. He is also telling us today that we are to look out for false teachers and to remain true to scripture. We are to keep ourselves clean in this world through God and look for our blessed hope and the glorious revealing of Christ in the Second Coming. May He come quickly!

S
sermonindex


Hi Jay,

Your exposition has made me think this: that the 'son of perdition' pertains to the old man being given full expression, whereas the 'man of God' is 'the new man' being given expression.

How does this strike you?

S
sermonindex

And now [b][size=small]you know[/size][/b] what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time
It's funny how we miss these other words in the text. Paul was speaking to the believing Thessaloncans almost 2000 years ago. These people KNEW what was withholding, and we who are supposed to be living in the day that this is going to happen have only ideas, misconceptions, theories etc.. and yet we have no knowledge and understanding.

I have my own belief of what happened, but like Jay said, no one wants to receive it.

But think about it, here we are, at the so called end of time and we have theories as to what is withholding this antichrist from being revealed, uncovered, exposed, and the Thessaloncans KNEW, and we don't.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

J
JaySaved

Your exposition has made me think this: that the 'son of perdition' pertains to the old man being given full expression, whereas the 'man of God' is 'the new man' being given expression.

I see 'son of perdition' referring to the group of people who profess faith in Christ but inwardly are far from Him. I think of Matthew 7 where Jesus talks about 'knowing them by their fruit' and how some on the day of judgment will be told by Jesus 'I never knew you.' It is a group that is full of the 'old man' but professing to be the new man but by their actions that lead some astray and blaspheme God. I do believe that has reached its zenith through the Roman Church and the office of the pope. Probably more so in the Middle Ages. The pope today is nothing like he used to be.

I agree with your statement about the 'man of God'.

J
JaySaved

Paul was speaking to the believing Thessaloncans almost 2000 years ago. These people KNEW what was withholding, and we who are supposed to be living in the day that this is going to happen have only ideas, misconceptions, theories etc.. and yet we have no knowledge and understanding.

I find it interesting (maybe someone can prove me wrong) but there is absolutely nothing in scripture that is critical of the Roman Government. If it is there I am not aware of it. Isn't that odd? Ever wonder why that is?

Specifically, let's use 2 Thess. 2 as an example. Paul is very cryptic when referring to 'him that restrains'. If Paul was talking about the Holy Spirit, why wouldn't he just say, 'The Holy Spirit is currently restaining the wicked one and He will do so until He is removed in the rapture.' In fact, Paul used the word 'Spirit' three times in Chapter 2 alone. No, it seems more likely that Paul did not want to appear critical to the Roman government in any of his writings. So, he preferred to tell them in person.

P
philologos

No, it seems more likely that Paul did not want to appear critical to the Roman government in any of his writings. So, he preferred to tell them in person.

Those of us who are able to visit Christians is dangerous places know that it is usually not our own neck that we put at risk but the necks of those who receive us. Similarly, this should not be thought of as timidity or cowardice on the part of Paul. If this letter had said 'The Roman Empire' and the letter had then been found in someone's house, it would have been a death sentence for the householder and his family.

J
JaySaved

Thanks for that insight Ron.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 29 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate