The REAL reasons for the Altar and Sacrificial System

[nmwings]

As prophecy seems to be playing out before our eyes, it’s time to start preparing for the days ahead. We know that 1 of the 2 signs that mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation will be that the Altar of the Most High is shut down. For those of you who have not been paying close attention to the events occurring in the Middle East, this is your “wake-up call.†There is overwhelming evidence that supports the possibility of that Altar being set up before Passover of next year….. but it could occur as early as mid-October of THIS year.

Growing up in a Pentecostal church, I was never taught anything about the Altar because my pastor believed it is now useless. But over the last few years, I have found this belief to be false. I have learned a great deal and I wish to share what I have learned with you.

Please...........
Keep all negative and sarcastic remarks to yourself. IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT THIS SAYS, THEN DON’T READ IT.

The following info has been gleaned from a seminar given by Monte Judah at Lion and Lamb Ministries in Norman, OK............

When God established the priests, He gave them instruction and commandments so they could teach the truth and its principles to the people. They lived among all the tribes so that if someone had a question, they could simply walk down the street to the nearest Levite and learn. It was Judaism that invented rabbis, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, which literally usurped the priests from their duties.

It is within this instruction and commandments given to the Levites that lie the very basics of our faith, right down to “how does a priest present this particular animal sacrifice?†The problem is this: Judaism got off-track long ago and Christianity never knew what it was. The church fathers never once went to Jerusalem to worship the Lord in accordance with the way the Lord said He wanted to be worshiped. Instead, they made up their own form of worship. Oh, they mimicked some of it: Catholics have “priests†and every denomination today has set up an “altar†down in front and proclaimed, “This is the altar, now!†And instead of bringing animals the way the Lord specified, it is now, “Bring your money!â€

To show how far off-course Judaism is about sacrifices, here are the 5 reasons they say sacrifices are for. Most of these should sound familiar to you, as the Church has adopted these same reasons to try to nullify the Sacrificial System.

FIVE WRONG REASONS:

1. For atonement for sin. Judaism says, "All our gifts to God are pure vanity and that He doesn’t need them. (The writer of the book of Hebrews shares this opinion because he says “they’re worthless and useless.†He got that idea from Judaism, and NOT from Scripture.)
2. For the livelihood of the priests. (Yes, they did indeed eat a lot of the food.)
3. As a cost to the sinner. To bring an animal from the flock cost the sinner, so it was “good motivation†to keep them from sinning.
4. It causes the sinner to think about religious concepts.
5. To wean the Israelites from idolatry. All the ancient peoples sacrificed to their gods, and according to Judaism, “it was similar to what they were used to and it gently weaned them from that kind of worship.â€

On the authority of the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) of Nazareth, the above reasons aren’t even close. The first true reason is:

1. The Lord is explaining and teaching us table fellowship with Him: That the hospitality of the Lord is the standard of hospitality in our homes. The Altar is His Table and the Lord has instructed, “I want meat, bread and wine on My Table so that when men come to do business with Me I can show hospitality and receive them.†Just like our own tables when we invite someone to come eat with us, they’ll usually ask, “What can I bring?†And then we’ll specify what is appropriate for them to bring. The Altar is where God said, “I will meet with a man and we will do business together.†This is also how man does business with one another: we sit at a table and make agreements. The simple protocol of the Lord's Altar is where the business world got the idea of wooing their clients into making deals.... around a table.

God is the one who set the very standard for the protocol and manners about what will be done at His Table. It’s as simple as this: “You want to come near to Me? Approach My Table. Ask to come and I’ll welcome you! I’ll specify what you can bring to the Table, and you may join in with Me.â€

Reasons #2 and 3 will be posted in a day or two…..

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You're asking us, by your admonitions to not read this, to ignore a false prophet, which, much as you may despise hearing it, Monte Judah most assuredly is. He is a follower of the principals in the discredited Kansas City Prophets and the Kingdom Now Prophets movements of the 90s and early in this century. For a really scary perspective on how misled and false the supposed teachers for God can get, take a look at this: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/kcp.html

Judah's claim that the Judaism "usurped" the power of the priests through the "invention" of rabbis, the political parties known in Christ's time, scribes -- scribes, really? They are the ones responsible for faithfully recording the works that became the Old Testament, so without them we wouldn't have the Old Testament -- is utter nonsense.

And this statement is outlandishly false: "Judaism got off-track long ago and Christianity never knew what it was." The first Christians were Jews so how is it you think they "never knew what it was?" Judah (not even his real name) is just another in a long line of people who claim to know what they are talking about who, in fact, are just another false prophet that we need to avoid. Please, I beg you, don't be misled by this man.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi nmwings,

I do hope that you don't take what I say as negative. I've done some Jewish studies and continue to study under some great Jewish teachers, so I hope that I can actually bring some value to your post.

It was Judaism that invented rabbis, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, which literally usurped the priests from their duties.

Rabbis were actually just teachers. Pharisees were a sect of teachers who understood the times of Roman Occupation as a direct result of Israel's actions as written by scripture: Deuteronomy 28:15 and onward. The Sadducees were just... Well, another sect. As you can begin to see, Judiasim was fractured much in the same way Christianity is fractured. I know you didn't mention the Sanhedrien, but those were the 70 Elders described in Exodus.

As far as the sacrifices:
1. For atonement for sin.
Leviticus 4:35B In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

This was to help clear the conscience of the worshiper. God did not need the blood of bulls, goats, sheep or birds. This was for the Worshipper as the writer of Hebrew explains.

2. For the livelihood of the priests.
Only for those priests who served at the Tabernacle or the Temple as it pertains to the Sacrifices. Did I mention this was on rotation by clan?

3. As a cost to the sinner.
It was for the forgiveness of sins according to Leviticus. However, if you look at the word sacrifice in the Hebrew, it means to draw near God.

The Jews WILL NOT sacrafice an animal until the Temple is rebuilt. They are forbidden to do so until the Temple is rebuilt. The Temple Institute is working on this project and already have all the furnishing ready, but they have one big problem... The Dome on the Rock. Until that gets resolved, no temple will be going up.

You might want to read how they view the Sacrificial system.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/sacrificial_service.htm

4. It causes the sinner to think about religious concepts.

Again, please read a Jewish take on that.

5. To wean the Israelites from idolatry.
The Sacrificial system was in place well before Israel came onto the scene, so from my point of view this is somewhat of an accurate statement. You won't find any Jew now days bowing to a piece of wood or stone that they've carved. But I don't think that's the main reason.

Like I said, I hope that you don't take this as a negative perspective.

 

[nmwings]

Continuing where I left off….

2. For the restoration of fellowship between both man and God. Since sin separates us from God, this is how we’re brought near to the Lord. It also includes the principles of restitution and how to make amends with your fellow man correctly. There is much instruction on: if you steal from your neighbor, defraud your neighbor, or lie to him to get gain. And when it comes time for you to make amends with your neighbor, you’ll make restitution to him and then you’ll come to the Lord and make restitution at the Altar, too. Yeshua (Jesus) tells us in Mat 5:23-24 to reconcile with our brother first and then come and get your business done with the Lord. Not the other way around!

(Our “justice†system today does not follow the concept of restitution. Thieves are not required to pay back the value of what they took from their victims, plus 20%. Instead, they are either put on probation to go out and do it again, or they are put behind bars to the burden of the taxpayers. The victims never find closure over their loss. Thus, fellowship between man and God cannot be restored in the absense of the Altar.)

3. For the worship of God: that is the respect, the adoration of the Almighty is illustrated by every sacrifice which must be lifted up and elevated onto the Altar. When you come to the Lord, you lift up with your hands every sacrifice and every gift to the Lord. It’s a reflection of your love for God, your respect of God and you recognizing Him. If you see someone worthy of great praise (say, a movie star or a rock star) and they have an audience, what do people do? We raise our voices, scream and cheer and... stick our hands in our pockets? NO! Our hands are in the air and we’re jumping up and down and waving our hands! We’re showing exuberance, adoration and respect! Where did we get the concept of that from? God specified that “when you come to worship Me, this is the proper way: you will raise your hands and you will elevate your offering to the Altar in this manner.â€

The last 2 reasons will be posted in a day or two….<o:p></o

 

[nmwings]

I do hope that you don't take what I say as negative…..Rabbis were actually just teachers.

I don’t mind going deeper and explaining things, but it is so very wearisome when I must repeat myself because people don’t read all of what I say. As I mentioned in my first post, God “ordained†only the Levites (specifically those from Aaron) to teach the people. Most of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Messiah’s day were NOT from the tribe of Levi at all and had no business whatsoever teaching the people about anything of God. That responsibility fell upon the Levites. Period. A prime example of Pharisees not being from the loins of Aaron is the apostle Paul, who came from the tribe of Benjamin. With the exception of a very few, the Rabbis of today are self-appointed teachers and do not come from Levi, either.

Pharisees were a sect of teachers who understood the times of Roman Occupation as a direct result of Israel's actions as written by scripture: Deuteronomy 28:15 and onward. The Sadducees were just... Well, another sect.

They were political parties, just like the Republicans and Democrats here in our country. Neither party taught and upheld the commandments of the Lord. Rather, they taught and enforced their own laws… the commandments and traditions of men. It is these commandments that the Messiah and the apostles were opposed to… and not those of God.

This was to help clear the conscience of the worshiper. God did not need the blood of bulls, goats, sheep or birds.

Of the 13 different sacrifices, only 2 were for sin. Lev 4:35 is talking about theTrespass offering (aka: sin offering) made by a common person (like you and me.) And you’re right…God doesn’t need blood…. But we sure do! The “clearing of our conscience†is only a symptom of something greater happening: being passed from death to life by being covered by the blood. The 2 Sin offerings could only cover unintentional sin. There was never a covering for intentional sin until the Messiah spilled His blood over the Altar. (Yes, the Altar was essential at the crucifixion. Without it, His death would have been in vain.) These 2 sin offerings (down to the very details of how they were to be presented at the Altar) are meant to teach us what the Messiah would do for us: to pass us from death (the penalty and curse for our disobedience) and bring us back into life (the blessing of obedience.) Without that shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness. And we still need that blood… not the blood from an animal sin offering, but the blood that flowed from the body of our Messiah.

The Jews WILL NOT sacrafice an animal until the Temple is rebuilt. They are forbidden to do so until the Temple is rebuilt. The Temple Institute is working on this project and already have all the furnishing ready, but they have one big problem... The Dome on the Rock. Until that gets resolved, no temple will begoing up.

They are ready to storm the Temple Mount and build that Altar at the moment they see an opportunity! Plus, the prophecies speak nothing of a Temple. All that is needed to fulfill the prophecy is the Altar itself, and it can be placed anywhere on the Temple Mount. Both the Messiah and Daniel (Mat 24:15, Dan 12:11) specify “the Holy Place,†which is actually quite large, covering 35 acres! The Dome of the Rock (an abomination itself) is situated approximately where the Holy of Holies is. Therefore, the Dome of the Rock can (and probably will) still be standing when the Altar is set up.

Stovebolts, I am very much aware of the 24 priestly courses, the Sanhedrin, etc. I applaud your knowledge of these things, but you are trying to get far more complicated than what I intend for this thread. The fact of the matter is, most Christians have been misled to believe the Altar is of no value to us anymore. During my time here on ChristianForums, whenever the subject of theAltar or sacrifices comes up, the disdain and contempt I receive from 95% of the members is unbelievable. We are so very close to that Altar being set up, and when it does a huge number of Christians will be against it simply because they cannot discern between what is holy and what is profane. And those who do speak against this Altar speak against God’s “Ownership Mark†of the whole Earth, thereby speaking against God Himself, and they will unwittingly side with the anti-messiah, because HE is the one who shuts down the Altar. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading the Book of Maccabees concerning Antiochus Epiphanes IV and what he did to the people and the law of God, because this entire story is a mere shadow of what’s to come. Therefore, this thread is to put the Altar and Sacrificial system in a whole new light and to uphold its teachings, just as the Messiah has done.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

They are ready to storm the Temple Mount and build that Altar at the moment they see an opportunity!

No offense, but here is the fallacy of your argument. The Israeli military is not willing to let the radicals start a war with Islam. The Temple Mount is under guard 24/7 to prevent this "storming of the mount" from occurring. The radical rabbis have made it a mere ritual, walking up the mount with supposed intent to take it by force, confronting the military unit face to face, accepting that access is denied, and turning and walking back down. It will not happen until God is willing for it to happen, and more than likely it will not happen until after the Rapture and the anti-christ's treaty with Israel.

 

[nmwings]

The last 2 reasons for the Altar and Sacrificial System….

4. Illustrates the redemptive work of the Messiah in the principle of substitution. It shows us how it is possible that something of value can be put in place of another thing, and yet it will be found acceptable and we can have a just conclusion. It is the very definition of the concept we call “giving.†The first teaching on “giving†any gift is based on the sacrificial system. “It must come from your domestic herd,†therefore it must be of value to you. You cannot go out and get something that didn’t cost you anything (something that has no value to you.) That’s not an acceptable gift. It must be your best one, the first fruits of it. So when you give a gift to another person, you’re not supposed to give something that’s worthless to you. If you do, you gave a worthless gift! But if you plan to give a good gift, the very first principle is, it must be a sacrifice to you! And it must come from you. The principle is this: the value of every gift is determined by the giver, and not by the person who receives it. These are spiritual values. In His gift of the Messiah to us, the Lord has given us something way beyond anything you have ever valued before. You might be thankful for having Him, but the value of the Messiah is NOT determined by you. You cannot possibly match the value of the gift of Messiah... that’s the reason why He is a gift given by God! We need that kind of gift! We need a gift of THAT value to be a covering for our sins.

And the instruction is given for any man who would come and worship the Lord, that he must bring a gift to the Lord that is a sacrifice to him. Thus it is called a “sacrifice.†It’s all about the teaching of “giving,†and it is the fist lesson in giving before you ever get to tithing, or “giving from the heart,†or giving like the Messiah gave: the giving of your life. But you have to learn that first lesson about giving (sacrifices) before you can ever go on to learn about those other gifts.

5. So we will have feasting and rejoicing for the Lord. All the Feasts of the Lord (the 7 listed in Lev 23) are based on certain gifts that were brought to the Altar, and we are commanded to enjoy them!

To recap the 5 REAL reasons for the Altar andSacrificial System:

1. The Lord is explaining and teaching us table fellowship with Him

2. For the restoration of fellowship between both man and God

3. For the worship of God

4. Illustrates the redemptive work of the Messiah in the principle of substitution

5. So we will have feasting and rejoicing for the Lord

If we call ourselves believers, we cannot throw out the teaching of the Altar, the priests and the sacrificial system because they teach us the understanding of how to give properly, and they teach the understanding of the work and the redemption that the Messiah has done for us! The very basics of beginning to understand these concepts, is for us to learn how to present a sacrifice to the Lord with a priest assisting us! I dare say, that if we can’t learn how to bring a lamb to a priest so he can lift it up for us as an offering (gift) to the Lord, we are a LONG way from understanding what God and the Lamb of God did for us!

After explaining the REAL reasons for the Altar and sacrifices, I originally wanted to cover the 13 different sacrifices and how they teach about the Messiah. But I really haven’t seen any genuine interest on this subject. Is there one person out there who really wants to learn?

 

[stovebolts]

I don’t mind going deeper and explaining things, but it is so very wearisome when I must repeat myself because people don’t read all of what I say. As I mentioned in my first post, God “ordained†only the Levites (specifically those from Aaron) to teach the people. Most of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Messiah’s day were NOT from the tribe of Levi at all and had no business whatsoever teaching the people about anything of God. That responsibility fell upon the Levites. Period. A prime example of Pharisees not being from the loins of Aaron is the apostle Paul, who came from the tribe of Benjamin. With the exception of a very few, the Rabbis of today are self-appointed teachers and do not come from Levi, either.

Hi, and thanks for answering. Most people don't have an interest in this stuff, so I appreciate the dialog. I'd like to ask questions on the other responses you have, but I want to keep it manageable if that's ok.

That is a remarkable statement above about only those from the tribe of Levi being Rabbi's. I understand that they were to live among the other tribes and teach etc since they had no inheritance to the land etc. Can't remember exactly what book, let alone chapter and verse I read that because it's been so long ago. But it would make sense, especially since John the Baptist was from the tribe of Levi.

But I also recall a woman calling Jesus Rabbi, as did his disciples, so it opens up a bunch of questions for me.

Where do you get that only those from the house of Levi were to be Rabbi's? Also, where does that place the Sanhedrin?

Thanks!

 

[tim-from-pa]

Hi nmwings:

Yes, this subject is fascinating to me and I'm on a similar line of thought. If I had to summarize everything you stated, it would be in these two quotes of yours (the first one being pragmatic as to the reason for this thread):

As prophecy seems to be playing out before our eyes, it’s time to start preparing for the days ahead. We know that 1 of the 2 signs that mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation will be that the Altar of the Most High is shut down. For those of you who have not been paying close attention to the events occurring in the Middle East, this is your “wake-up call.†There is overwhelming evidence that supports the possibility of that Altar being set up before Passover of next year….. but it could occur as early as mid-October of THIS year.

And from the spiritual (and understanding the purpose) end of things the summarized meanings of the sacrificial system:

1. The Lord is explaining and teaching us table fellowship with Him

2. For the restoration of fellowship between both man and God

3. For the worship of God

4. Illustrates the redemptive work of the Messiah in the principle of substitution

5. So we will have feasting and rejoicing for the Lord

Also you mentioned there will not actually be a need for a temple. Hmmmm. That's an interesting insight and I could go for that. It would definitely "speed things up". I traditionally hold the idea of another temple being built (as you well know that they have plans for it) but I am open to the idea you your statement can also be correct. If in their zealousness they get the altar going, I could see that coming first, and that's all the beast would need for the abomination. However, on the downside I'd have to find an alternate interpretation as to what Paul then meant about the beast sitting in the temple of God showing that he is God. Some Christians like to make that temple abode their hearts meaning this passage shows that many will be deceived. Anyhoo..... I share your thoughts as well pertaining to the Levites. Let me answer Stovebolt's question the way I think you would answer it (but using my phraseology) , and that will be a test if we are on the same page.

But I also recall a woman calling Jesus Rabbi, as did his disciples, so it opens up a bunch of questions for me.

Where do you get that only those from the house of Levi were to be Rabbi's? Also, where does that place the Sanhedrin?

It was already stated in Scriptures that only the Levites were to teach God's Law to the people. Keep in mind that what is called Judaism perverted that teaching of scripture, so as any society that now has some traditions of men in it would call others "Rabbi". In fact, later on Christ actually taught not to call anyone else "Rabbi".

 

[tim-from-pa]

No offense, but here is the fallacy of your argument. The Israeli military is not willing to let the radicals start a war with Islam. The Temple Mount is under guard 24/7 to prevent this "storming of the mount" from occurring. The radical rabbis have made it a mere ritual, walking up the mount with supposed intent to take it by force, confronting the military unit face to face, accepting that access is denied, and turning and walking back down. It will not happen until God is willing for it to happen, and more than likely it will not happen until after the Rapture and the anti-christ's treaty with Israel.

Also no offence, but I think that nmwings is merely stating that such events are in position and are imminent. This is not the same as prediction of a date or time. Things can change rather rapidly and I have to respectfully disagree that his logic is flawed just because "the Israeli military is not willing to let the radicals start a war..."
If God wants to use the military to restrain that from happening until the time comes, so be it. On the other hand, when it's time, somehow things will change.

 

[nmwings]

Where do you get that only those from the house of Levi were to be Rabbi's?

The Levites were commissioned to teach the people how to live righteously and walk blameless before the Lord in Lev 10:8-11. In stark contrast, a rabbi of Judaism (both in Messiah’s day and today) can be from any tribe, and neither of them teach the law given to us at Sinai. They teach their own laws, and it was these man-made laws that Messiah set Himself against.

Also, where does that place the Sanhedrin?

The Sanhedrin came into being in Ex 18:13-27 in order to alleviate Moses when he was running a “one-man show.†They are appointed from all the12 tribes to be officers and judges of the court. Their sole responsibility is to judge between a man and his fellow in a civil dispute in accordance with only the law of God. Nothing more, nothing less. Please keep in mind that just as the rabbis had been corrupted before the birth of Messiah, so had the Sanhedrin. We can see this corruption each time the Sanhedrin makes another rule or "law" to govern the people. They have absolutely NO authority to change one word of the Law given at Sinai.

But it would make sense, especially since John the Baptist was from the tribe of Levi.

I’m thrilled you have made this observation, as most people don’t! A common misconception is that when Yeshua (Jesus) was baptized by John, Andrew and Phillip saw the Spirit descending upon Him. But they were not there. They didn’t arrive until the following day! So, in John 1:35-44 why did John’s 2 disciples believe Yeshua was the Messiah? The only evidence they have at this point is John saying, “Behold the Lamb of God!†They were well-versed in the Torah (they had a Levite teaching them!) and they knew they couldn’t rely on the testimony of just one man- that is hearsay! They knew they needed the witness of 2 or 3 in order to establish truth. Yet they believed enough to find out where Yeshua was staying and then run home to proclaim that they found the Messiah! So why did they believe, without seeing a single miracle or hearing a single word from Yeshua? Because any sacrifice that comes before God must be declared an acceptable sacrifice by a Levite priest! Even a sacrifice brought by God, Himself! John was effectively declaring Yeshua as the acceptable Lamb of God according to the instructions of the Torah! Even the crucifixion occurred exactly as the Torah demands for this type of sacrifice! Down to the very place where He was taken is in accordance to the Torah! You do know that He was lifted up over the Altar for sanctification, right? And, had His death NOT been in accordance with the instruction given at Sinai, He would not have been acceptable in the sight of the Lord!

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for the reply. Sadly I'm out of time

I asked about the Sanhedrin because they were the governing council of Israel and are mentioned in Exodus 3:16 and again in Exodus 15:27. As far as the judges Scripture says: 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

The Prophet Deborah is said to be from the tribe of Issachar so I don't see the Sanhedrin the same as the Judges. Also, the judges went out when King Saul came in but the Sanhedrin stayed the way I understand it anyway.

What I know from History is that when King Herod came into power, he killed the majority of the Sanhedrin and appointed his own counsel (Sanhedrin) to rule Israel with Rome in mind, and not Isreal. Herod was half edomite as well and desecrated the temple when he refurbished it using iron tools which was forbidden in the building of the temple.

How do you see this?

As far as the Rabbi's being only from the tribe of Levi, I'd like to delve a bit deeper into that one. You've got me re-thinking a few things

 

[nmwings]

Let me answer Stovebolt's question the way I think you would answer it (but using my phraseology) , and that will be a test if we are on the same page."

Yes, I think we’re on the same page!

However, on the downside I'd have to find an alternate interpretation as to what Paul then meant about the beast sitting in the temple of God showing that he is God.

I’m not so sure that Paul is telling us what he will do once he is revealed to us. But rather, I think Paul is reminding us of what his goal has always been. As we see in Isa 14:12-14, Satan’s goal from the beginning is to exalt his throne over the one of God… to sit as God. (This passage is just one of many reasons why I believe Adam was the first priest in the Temple of God on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, meaning that the Garden in Eden was NOT in “Mesopotamia†as scholars suggest, but was in fact, the Holy Land of Israel.) Ezek 28:1-19 carries the same theme that Satan has always strived to have possession of the throne of God, and the Lord’s earthly throne has always been Jerusalem.

Now compare this to the “broken horn†prophecy in Dan 8:22-26, which is a “double prophecy†of both Antiochus Epiphanies IV, AND the Anti-Messiah. The actions of the Anti-Messiah will mirror the actions of Antiochus! Compare who Antiochus IV was, and his actions to what Scripture has to say about the Anti-Messiah: Antiochus was NOT the rightful heir to his father’s throne, he shut down the Altar of God, he put a statue (image) of himself in the Holy of Holies, and he made a decree saying, “Don’t follow the Torah, don’t circumcise your children, don’t celebrate the Sabbath, don’t observe the Festivals, have nothing to do with the Temple and the Altar, and eat pig!†(On a side note, isn’t it ironic that traditional Christianity actually teaches that by following these evil decrees of Antiochus is how we express our faith in Yeshua as our Messiah!?!)


Now, on the “flip-side†of this (and in light of the above) if Paul is indeed telling us what the Anti-Messiah will actually do, then I humbly submit that Satan already sits on the earthly throne of God, showing that he is God.... in the form of Allah inside his temple… the Dome of the Rock.

 

[nmwings]

Thanks for the reply. Sadly I'm out of time <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shape style="width: 11.25pt; height: 11.25pt; visibility: visible; mso-wrap-style: square;" id="Picture_x0020_1" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="http://www.christianforums.net/images/smilies/icon_frown.gif" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"> <v:imagedata o:title="icon_frown" src="file:///C:\Users\Ladybird\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

I’m not sure what you mean by “out of time†so I will keep my answers short…..

I asked about the Sanhedrin because they were the governing council of Israel…â€

And your statement is my whole point. The original “governing council of Israel†was the Lord God of Israel! While in the wilderness, He “governed†in the form of the Pillars of Fire and of Cloud. In the “Joshua years†He governed through the prophets and the Urim and Thummim. The “Sanhedrin†of the time were the judges who carried out the judicial decrees that the Lord had already established since the foundation of the world.

Also, the judges went out when King Saul came in but the Sanhedrin stayed the way I understand it anyway.

Indeed, the judges “went out†when they appointed themselves as the "governing council of Israel" when we did evil in the sight of the Lord by wanting to be like the other nations and demanded a king (a mere man) to rule over us….. instead of the Lord God.

 

[nmwings]

After posting my response to you last night, I realized I didn’t address this issue! Oops! Sorry!

What I know from History is that when King Herod came into power, he killed the majority of theSanhedrin and appointed his own counsel (Sanhedrin) to rule Israel with Rome in mind, and not Isreal. Herod was half edomite as well and desecrated the templewhen he refurbished it using iron tools which was forbidden in the building of the temple.

How do you see this?

Yes, the Sanhedrin was “reconfigured†during Herod’s rule. But as for “desecrating the Temple using iron tools,†I must disagree with that statement. The prohibition of using iron tools applies only to the Altar. Josephus states that Herod worked on the foundation of the Temple Mount and the outside of the Temple (walls, pillars, doors, etc) while the Levites built the Altars and the inside of the Temple.

 

[stovebolts]

I’m not sure what you mean by “out of time†so I will keep my answers short…..

Well, it was simply to say that my schedule doesn't allow much internet time anymore. Believe me, I'd love to chat more about this!

And your statement is my whole point. The original “governing council of Israel†was the Lord God of Israel! While in the wilderness, He “governed†in the form of the Pillars of Fire and of Cloud. In the “Joshua years†He governed through the prophets and the Urim and Thummim. The “Sanhedrin†of the time were the judges who carried out the judicial decrees that the Lord had already established since the foundation of the world.

I understand what your saying and what you are describing in a Monarchy embedded in the Shema right? Hear oh Israel, YHVH our Elohim is one.

BTW, the Urim and Thummim was used with Moses as well. This is kind of how I see it.

Exodus 28:30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

We see that Aaron, a Levite Priest was to bear the judgment of Israel upon his heart before the LORD. And we know that it was Aaron who ministered at the altar. All of this agrees with what you have said so far in regard to one being called a Rabbi

But more to my point, it doesn't address Exodus 15:25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

And these chosen were judges, not the governing counsel known as the Sanhedrin.

If I have a misunderstanding, please explain it to me and I do hope you don't think I'm being argumentative. I just see this a bit differently than you and I'm trying to show you why.

That being said, I do understand that scripture also states: Numbers 16:16. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Assemble for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the people's elders and officers, and you shall take them to the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with You.

I understand the "whom you know" to be those Moses knew when he killed the Egyptian and I see these 70 Elders being the Sanhedrin. But the question remains, were they Levites? I'm kinda on the fence on this one still. Seems it could go either way. I hope this does not frustrate you.

Indeed, the judges “went out†when they appointed themselves as the "governing council of Israel" when we did evil in the sight of the Lord by wanting to be like the other nations and demanded a king (a mere man) to rule over us….. instead of the Lord God.

Actually, I just posted Numbers 16:16 which shows that Moses appointed the 70 Elders (Sanhedrin). But you are correct that later they demanded a king.

1 Samuel 8:4 And all the elders of Israel gathered, and came to Samuel, to Ramah.
5 And they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now, set up for us a king to judge us like all the nations."

We know that Samuel was of Levitical decent and that Samuel was a high priest such as Aaron. As such, he would have worn the Ephod with the Urim and Thummim and would have carried the judgment of Israel as the previous scripture noted. But as noted, the priest was mediator between God and Man, and that wasn't the role of a judge.

Thoughts?

Well, I've run out of time. Thanks for reading and I look forward to our dialog tomorrow.

 

[stovebolts]

After posting my response to you last night, I realized I didn’t address this issue! Oops! Sorry!


Yes, the Sanhedrin was “reconfigured” during Herod’s rule. But as for “desecrating the Temple using iron tools,” I must disagree with that statement. The prohibition of using iron tools applies only to the Altar. Josephus states that Herod worked on the foundation of the Temple Mount and the outside of the Temple (walls, pillars, doors, etc) while the Levites built the Altars and the inside of the Temple.

I understand that this is a controversy in ideology and it is a debatable matter. But just so you know, this is the reasoning.

We both agree with this passage:
Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

The way I understand this verse as polluting the Altar comes from the word tool. The word in Hebrew is chereb. Not that I use Strongs as an authority, but we see that this word has been translated as Strongs outlines:
drought; also a cutting instrument (from its destructive effect), as a knife, sword, or other sharp implement:--axe, dagger, knife, mattock, sword, tool.

1 Kings 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.

The word tool here is a different word than in Exodus 20:25, but they are related in the sense that they are made of iron, and iron can be beaten down to make tools of destruction, or tools of purpose.

We see this here:
Joel 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

The word swords is also the same word used for tool in exodus 20:25

Now then, if we go back to this verse:
1 Kings 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.

It is suggested that Solomon did not want any inference of anything associated with death or destruction while building the temple as the Temple was to be a house of prayer. Juxtapose that with Herod and we see the opposite. Herod was a vile mane and what he did with the temple was detestable. It was a den of robbers and theives and run by an institution that was self serving. It was far from holy regardless of how pretty Herod made it. Even it's upgrades under Herod sounded like death...

 

[nmwings]

I understand what your saying and what you are describing in a Monarchy embedded in the Shema right? Hear oh Israel, YHVH our Elohim is one.

Yes!

But more to my point, it doesn't address Exodus 15:25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

And these chosen were judges, not the governing counsel known as the Sanhedrin.

If I have a misunderstanding, please explain it to me and I do hope you don't think I'm being argumentative. I just see this a bit differently than you and I'm trying to show you why.

I don’t think you’re being argumentative at all! And I do believe I’ve discovered where our difference in opinions lie: you view these “leaders†and “judges†as two separate and distinct groups of people. If this is the case, Deut 1:9-18 should help in our discussion (at least I think it will!) The theme and context of these 10 verses are the tribal leaders: it gives us the reason why they were needed (vs 9-12), who they would be (vs 13-15), and what they would do (vs 16-18.)

But if that doesn’t clear it up, here is what the Sanhedrin says about themselves on their website: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Historical_Overview

“The term, Sanhedrin is the name of the Beth Din HaGadol (The Great Court) as it was called during the Second Temple Period.†But actually, “The Great Court†is not a correct interpretation of “Beth Din HaGadol.†The literal interpretation is: “House of the High (or Great) Judge.†Therefore, their original position were judges... not teachers, nor lawmakers. But over time, they usurped the teaching authority of the Levites and the law set in place by God.

We know that Samuel was of Levitical decent and that Samuel was a high priest such as Aaron. As such, he would have worn the Ephod with the Urim and Thummim and would have carried the judgment of Israel as the previous scripture noted. But as noted, the priest was mediator between God and Man, and that wasn't the role of a judge.

Thoughts?

Although Samuel was a son of Levi, he was not a son of Aaron. He was a son of Aaron’s uncle, Izhar. I know that gets confusing real fast! In a nutshell it goes like this: Levi had 3 sons (Gershon, Kohath and Merari.) Kohath had Amram (Moses and Aaron’s dad), and Izhar. It is from the loins of Izhar that Samuel descends. (See 1 Sam 1:1 and then 1 Chron 6:1-3 and then drop down to 1 Chron 6:33-38.) Because Samuel did not come from the loins of Aaron, he could never be a priest. We do know that as a child, Samuel worked in the Sanctuary, and from Num 4:1-20 we can get an idea of what he could do, and what he couldn’t do. (Actually, all we’re told is what the sons of Kohath could carry once the items were covered by the sons of Aaron.) It's easy to get confused concerning Levites. One thing that might help you is this: a priest will always be a Levite, but not all Levites can be priests.

 

[stovebolts]

I don’t think you’re being argumentative at all! And I do believe I’ve discovered where our difference in opinions lie: you view these “leaders” and “judges” as two separate and distinct groups of people. If this is the case, Deut 1:9-18 should help in our discussion (at least I think it will!) The theme and context of these 10 verses are the tribal leaders: it gives us the reason why they were needed (vs 9-12), who they would be (vs 13-15), and what they would do (vs 16-18.)

But if that doesn’t clear it up, here is what the Sanhedrin says about themselves on their website: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Historical_Overview

“The term, Sanhedrin is the name of the Beth Din HaGadol (The Great Court) as it was called during the Second Temple Period.” But actually, “The Great Court” is not a correct interpretation of “Beth Din HaGadol.” The literal interpretation is: “House of the High (or Great) Judge.” Therefore, their original position were judges... not teachers, nor lawmakers. But over time, they usurped the teaching authority of the Levites and the law set in place by God.

PHew, so glad you dont' think I'm being argumentative! That's the bad thing about forums some times is that without voice inflection etc, it's hard to have a good discussion. Thank you!

Thanks for posting Deut 1. It seems to me that each tribe had appointed judges and those judges reported to higher judges and if you flowed up the corporate ladder far enough, you ended up with the 70 Elders (Sanhedrin) which resided in the Temple.

It would also seem to me that these Judges came under the authority of the Levitical Priests. So when I read the statement about the Sanhedrin that you posted, "they usurped the teaching authority of the Levites and the law set in place by God" it seems to fit together.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and I don't want to go back and read everything that's been posted, but I had the idea that you were saying that he Sanhedrin were from the house of Levi. If this is the case, I hope that what I've posted above sets out my view a little clearer and if you see something wrong in what I've said, I'm certainly open to learn.

BTW, that is a nice link. I usually stay pretty closer to chabad.org and some of what I've written in this thread comes from Ramban, Rashi and audio clips I've listened to from Chabad.org

Although Samuel was a son of Levi, he was not a son of Aaron. He was a son of Aaron’s uncle, Izhar. I know that gets confusing real fast! In a nutshell it goes like this: Levi had 3 sons (Gershon, Kohath and Merari.) Kohath had Amram (Moses and Aaron’s dad), and Izhar. It is from the loins of Izhar that Samuel descends. (See 1 Sam 1:1 and then 1 Chron 6:1-3 and then drop down to 1 Chron 6:33-38.) Because Samuel did not come from the loins of Aaron, he could never be a priest. We do know that as a child, Samuel worked in the Sanctuary, and from Num 4:1-20 we can get an idea of what he could do, and what he couldn’t do. (Actually, all we’re told is what the sons of Kohath could carry once the items were covered by the sons of Aaron.) It's easy to get confused concerning Levites. One thing that might help you is this: a priest will always be a Levite, but not all Levites can be priests.

That was actually very informative and I've spent the last 30-45 minutes digesting it and having stimulated thoughts over it. As a tidbit, I noticed in verse 16 The charge of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen: oil for lighting, the incense of spices, the continual [daily] meal offering, and the anointing oil; the charge for the entire Mishkan and all that is in it, of the Holy and its furnishings.

The whole chapter is broken down by the clans from house of Kohen. What is neat is how Eleazar, son of Aaron is tasked with moving the above items and not any of the other clans. Not to side track, but I think that's significant, but outside the scope of our topic. It was just too cool not to mention it lol.

Now then, that makes me ask about John the Baptist's father as he was chosen from lot to offer incense.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Very interesting, I actually never caught that before... In Jewish thought, the soul comes through the mother. That is why if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, then the child must convert to the Jewish faith. However, if a Jewish woman marries a gentile, the child is considered a Jew. With this same line of thought, Elisabeth was from the line of Aaron, so how much more in Jewish thought would that make John from the line of Aaron.

What I don't know is what is meant by, "course of Abia". Is that referring to the son of Solomon?

I am finding this all very fascinating.

 

[nmwings]

Perhaps I'm wrong, and I don't want to go back and read everything that's been posted, but I had the idea that you were saying that he Sanhedrin were from the house of Levi.

No, what I said was…. God “ordained†only the Levites (specifically those from Aaron) to teach the people. Most of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Messiah’s day were NOT from the tribe of Levi at all and had no business whatsoever teaching the people about anything of God. That responsibility fell upon the Levites. Period. An example of Pharisees not being from the loins of Aaron is the apostle Paul who came from the tribe of Benjamin. With the exception of a very few, the Rabbis of today are self-appointed teachers and do not come from Levi, either.

In Jewish thought, the soul comes through the mother. With this same line of thought, Elisabeth was from the line of Aaron, so how much more in Jewish thought would that make John from the line of Aaron.

What is even more interesting is this: since Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother) was a daughter of Aaron, that infers Mary the mother of Yeshua was also a daughter of Aaron. (They were kin... see Luke 1:36)

totopic

So when the Altar is set up again in Jerusalem, how will you react? Will you try to go and worship the Lord? Will you stand for the Lord against the tidal surge of Atheists and Christians, friends and family, who will be in an uproar against it? What will you do?