Animal sacrifice in Leviticus?

[ViaCrucis]

So if a new temple gets built the animal sacrifices are going to start up again?

In Judaism, yes. Or ostensibly. Some Jews think the Temple should be rebuilt, but many believe that there won't be a Temple standing in Jerusalem until the Messiah comes and it shouldn't until then. So I suspect there's going to be something of a divisive stance on the issue within the Jewish community should such an endeavor ever take place.

From an orthodox Christian perspective? No, the rebuilding of the Temple has no significance in mainstream, orthodox Christian thought and it would be irrelevant. And for a Christian to want to offer sacrifices at such a temple would be considered by most Christian churches/denominations/traditions as an act of apostasy. The only temple that has meaning in orthodox Christian religion is the mystical temple of Christ's Body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Rank]

So if a new temple gets built the animal sacrifices are going to start up again?

Yes, that is what the bible states, at least, there is enough evidence to suggest that at some point this will happen. But before casting me off as some heretic, let me share a thought, please?

First of all, if and when they resume, I don't believe we will be doing them unless ONLY as a memorial in the same manner communion is done. However, I don't personally go there... I don't see the need for us to take the life of an animal for only a picture. Of course, the animals are not wasted, they are eaten by the priests (and in the case of the Pesach, the Passover, by the family that brought it in) but still...

Secondly, the sacrifices pointed to Yeshua's work. Now keep in mind, sacrifices were for different reasons, not all sacrifices are sin sacrifices after all. But they were done long ago pointing forward to him and the work he would do and when and if they happen again, they will simply point back to what he did which leads me to...

Finally... when we get to the Millennial Kingdom, there will be unperfected people alive, the nations will exist. Revelation speaks of us reigning with Messiah and to reign one needs others to reign over. Zechariah speaks of the nations coming to Jerusalem and worshiping the King (Yeshua) during Sukkot (Tabernacles) and if they don't they will be punished in the form of no rain on their crops. I believe it will be THEM who we will be teaching, reigning over, and taking Torah to (God's instructions) and when THEY come to Jerusalem for the Feasts, they will do the sacrifices and learn of Yeshua's work... but also perhaps have a chance to actually see him while there.

What I have just shared does give an answer to something of a conundrum for Christians, the fact that Aaronic Priesthood is called everlasting (in the verse below and two others)....

Exodus 40:15 You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

From an orthodox Christian perspective? No, the rebuilding of the Temple has no significance in mainstream, orthodox Christian thought and it would be irrelevant. And for a Christian to want to offer sacrifices at such a temple would be considered by most Christian churches/denominations/traditions as an act of apostasy. The only temple that has meaning in orthodox Christian religion is the mystical temple of Christ's Body.

I agree that the perfected (the bride, those who belong to Yeshua) have no reason to take part in the sacrifices. However, Paul did do at least one sacrifice that we can see in Acts. Now, some suggest he did this to appease an angry mob. The problem I have with that is two-fold. One, it means the man who wrote so boldly about standing firm in the faith and about having the willingness to sacrifice oneself, did something that he seemingly taught against just to keep from getting hurt? And second, that means he willingly took part in an apostasy just to appease angry Jews? An apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one's previous beliefs. Does that sound like Paul? Yet if taking part in a sacrifice is an apostasy, that is where we end up and that isn't good.

I am not saying I am correct, but if you have a minute and care enough to share it with me, please read my post above (#22) and let me know what your take is once you've considered it.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Phil 1:21]

Given that most Christians today don't follow the rules in Leviticus and often break those rules, in what way is it fundamental?

I'm sorry I did not respond sooner. I've been away from my computer.

And I also apologize for the confusion my post created. By fundamental I did not mean that following Levital law is fundamental, but rather that Leviticus foreshadows Jesus Christ. In order to understand why Jesus' death paid the price, past, present, and future, once for all, for the sins of His followers. The answer to that question is found in Leviticus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree that the perfected (the bride, those who belong to Yeshua) have no reason to take part in the sacrifices. However, Paul did do at least one sacrifice that we can see in Acts. Now, some suggest he did this to appease an angry mob. The problem I have with that is two-fold. One, it means the man who wrote so boldly about standing firm in the faith and about having the willingness to sacrifice oneself, did something that he seemingly taught against just to keep from getting hurt? And second, that means he willingly took part in an apostasy just to appease angry Jews? An apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one's previous beliefs. Does that sound like Paul? Yet if taking part in a sacrifice is an apostasy, that is where we end up and that isn't good.

I am not saying I am correct, but if you have a minute and care enough to share it with me, please read my post above (#22) and let me know what your take is once you've considered it.

Blessings.
Ken

I think there's a case to be made that Paul was willing to make concessions for the unity of the Church, and here he is not rejecting everything he has preached, but being a peacemaker. That said, this was still a time when the Temple still stood in Jerusalem and Christ's prophecy of its destruction had not yet occurred. The Temple that stood in the first century was still the Temple; any future Temple isn't. There are only two physical structures that have been permitted by God, the first was built under Solomon, and the second was its restoration under Zerubabbel following the Exile.

If, at some point in the future, the Jewish people wish to rebuild a temple in Jerusalem (and it can be done without bloodshed considering the present circumstances) then more power to them. It's just that it won't have any significance for Christianity--no more, than say, when a new mosque is built somewhere. In other words, that's their religious prerogative as it would be religiously meaningful for them perhaps, but the religious buildings and structures and practices of other religions don't have significance on our religion. From a Christian perspective it would just be another building, like the Golden Temple in Sikhism, or the Great Mosque of Mecca in Islam.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Rank]

I think there's a case to be made that Paul was willing to make concessions for the unity of the Church, and here he is not rejecting everything he has preached, but being a peacemaker.

I am not against you here, I hope you know that. I am just trying to work through this like anyone else. If doing a sacrifice after Yeshua gave his life is an apostate action (as you said)... then there is NO REASON one should EVER do it again without that action standing against what messiah did, right? I mean... for the sake of peace do I take part in homosexual acts? Do I murder one guy so that others who fear him won't be afraid? I am trying to be extreme on purpose.... what justification is there EVER in doing something that stands against God's will so that His will can be done? How does that represent His character without profaning it? If Yeshua's sacrifice ended all sacrifices and doing one now by a believer is an apostate act... then how can we justify doing one for any reason?

Just asking....

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not against you here, I hope you know that. I am just trying to work through this like anyone else. If doing a sacrifice after Yeshua gave his life is an apostate action (as you said)... then there is NO REASON one should EVER do it again without that action standing against what messiah did, right? I mean... for the sake of peace do I take part in homosexual acts? Do I murder one guy so that others who fear him won't be afraid? I am trying to be extreme on purpose.... what justification is there EVER in doing something that stands against God's will so that His will can be done? How does that represent His character without profaning it? If Yeshua's sacrifice ended all sacrifices and doing one now by a believer is an apostate act... then how can we justify doing one for any reason?

Just asking....

My thinking on the matter is something like this: In Paul's time the Temple that stood in Jerusalem was still the Temple that had been there since the Exile. Jewish Christians still sometimes went to the Temple for worship, just as they continued to attend the synagogue. For example, some people have argued that when Paul criticized Peter for not eating with the Gentiles, that this meant that Paul was there eating pork with Gentiles--that's not something I'm so sure of. Paul very well may have continued to eat kosher for the rest of his life, but Paul's message was that whether Jew or Gentile, both are one new and whole people in Jesus and that Gentiles were under no compulsion to become Jews or pretend to be Jews. Paul's criticism of Peter is because Peter refused to interact with the Gentiles while the delegation from Jerusalem was present--Peter was acting hypocritically and cowardly, and Paul called him out on it. When Paul accepts the Nazarite vow with several others from Jerusalem, he wasn't shirking back from his position of the integrity and unity of Jews and Gentiles together in the Church, he was asked to do this and he agreed.

Paul, a 1st century Jew going to the Temple which had been standing for around five hundred years to do what was at that time probably quite normal for Jewish Christians to do is one thing. But a Christian, two thousand years later, attending a Temple that is not divinely sanctioned, and offering a sacrifice that is not divinely acceptable, that's a problem.

It's not just that with Christ's death the sacrificial system was no longer relevant, it's that a future temple in Jerusalem would be idolatrous, and participating in something like that would be--to put it mildly--quite inappropriate. I don't actually think this is something to be terribly concerned with, largely because I'm not holding my breath for a temple to be rebuilt any time in the near future, but even more-so because I'm pretty sure that anyone that isn't halachically Jewish wouldn't be allowed--Jewish converts to Christianity are regarded as non-Jews in Judaism, they aren't halachically Jewish and thus wouldn't be allowed to participate in those particular Jewish rites associated with the Temple.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not against you here, I hope you know that. I am just trying to work through this like anyone else. If doing a sacrifice after Yeshua gave his life is an apostate action (as you said)... then there is NO REASON one should EVER do it again without that action standing against what messiah did, right? I mean... for the sake of peace do I take part in homosexual acts? Do I murder one guy so that others who fear him won't be afraid? I am trying to be extreme on purpose.... what justification is there EVER in doing something that stands against God's will so that His will can be done? How does that represent His character without profaning it? If Yeshua's sacrifice ended all sacrifices and doing one now by a believer is an apostate act... then how can we justify doing one for any reason?

Just asking....

I possibly didn't fully address some of your concerns questions, so that's what this post is for.

The reason I said offering a sacrifice at a future temple would be apostate is because it would be an act of rejecting the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith. That isn't the case with Paul, for reasons I already addressed in my previous post, because I don't believe that Jewish Christians who continued to go to the Temple and participate in the Temple rites in the years between Christ's death and the destruction of the Temple were committing apostasy--if for no other reason than it was still a period of transition and learning to come to terms with what Jesus meant for the fledgling Christian community. I mean, it took a while to even accept Gentile converts.

But there can be legitimate reasons to do things in some circumstances that wouldn't be acceptable in others. And I think it is good to be mindful of this.

To lie to save a life, for instance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Rank]

My thinking on the matter is something like this: In Paul's time the Temple that stood in Jerusalem was still the Temple that had been there since the Exile. Jewish Christians still sometimes went to the Temple for worship, just as they continued to attend the synagogue. For example, some people have argued that when Paul criticized Peter for not eating with the Gentiles, that this meant that Paul was there eating pork with Gentiles--that's not something I'm so sure of. Paul very well may have continued to eat kosher for the rest of his life, but Paul's message was that whether Jew or Gentile, both are one new and whole people in Jesus and that Gentiles were under no compulsion to become Jews or pretend to be Jews. Paul's criticism of Peter is because Peter refused to interact with the Gentiles while the delegation from Jerusalem was present--Peter was acting hypocritically and cowardly, and Paul called him out on it. When Paul accepts the Nazarite vow with several others from Jerusalem, he wasn't shirking back from his position of the integrity and unity of Jews and Gentiles together in the Church, he was asked to do this and he agreed.

Paul, a 1st century Jew going to the Temple which had been standing for around five hundred years to do what was at that time probably quite normal for Jewish Christians to do is one thing. But a Christian, two thousand years later, attending a Temple that is not divinely sanctioned, and offering a sacrifice that is not divinely acceptable, that's a problem.

It's not just that with Christ's death the sacrificial system was no longer relevant, it's that a future temple in Jerusalem would be idolatrous, and participating in something like that would be--to put it mildly--quite inappropriate. I don't actually think this is something to be terribly concerned with, largely because I'm not holding my breath for a temple to be rebuilt any time in the near future, but even more-so because I'm pretty sure that anyone that isn't halachically Jewish wouldn't be allowed--Jewish converts to Christianity are regarded as non-Jews in Judaism, they aren't halachically Jewish and thus wouldn't be allowed to participate in those particular Jewish rites associated with the Temple.

-CryptoLutheran

Always possible. However... we do see things very differently and that doesn't bother me. I don't see Paul teaching against Torah (he even states this before his death - Acts 28:17 I believe) and the halacha of the day was that Greeks did not eat with Jews. Peter not eating with them had nothing to do with pork and everything to do with WHO he wouldn't eat with. The point of Peter's vision is not food, it was people and he said this (i.e. "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." - Acts 10:28. When and how did God "show him?" In the vision). So, we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Ken Rank]

I possibly didn't fully address some of your concerns questions, so that's what this post is for.

The reason I said offering a sacrifice at a future temple would be apostate is because it would be an act of rejecting the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith. That isn't the case with Paul, for reasons I already addressed in my previous post, because I don't believe that Jewish Christians who continued to go to the Temple and participate in the Temple rites in the years between Christ's death and the destruction of the Temple were committing apostasy--if for no other reason than it was still a period of transition and learning to come to terms with what Jesus meant for the fledgling Christian community. I mean, it took a while to even accept Gentile converts.

But there can be legitimate reasons to do things in some circumstances that wouldn't be acceptable in others. And I think it is good to be mindful of this.

To lie to save a life, for instance.

-CryptoLutheran

Again, I get what you are saying. But if a murderer comes in faith to the Lord, is it permissible for him to take part in a few more murders during the transition phase? If Yeshua's work, then, ended the need to sacrifice... then I am not sure it is consistent to think a few more sacrifices don't demean his work. I think, respectfully, that we just don't have a good understanding of the sacrificial system. But... that can be something Yeshua explains when we meet him, if it is really that important. Blessings.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The question that needs to be asked is this: Did making sin-offering sacrifices in the earthly temple procure eternal life for the offerer?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The question that needs to be asked is this: Did making sin-offering sacrifices in the earthly temple procure eternal life for the offerer?

No.

 

[Kylie]

I'm sorry I did not respond sooner. I've been away from my computer.

And I also apologize for the confusion my post created. By fundamental I did not mean that following Levital law is fundamental, but rather that Leviticus foreshadows Jesus Christ. In order to understand why Jesus' death paid the price, past, present, and future, once for all, for the sins of His followers. The answer to that question is found in Leviticus.

And that answer is, "God wants blood," yes?

 

[Phil 1:21]

And that answer is, "God wants blood," yes?

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

So then why does God demand so many sacrifices?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is there any part of the bible that explains why many of the old testament commands are not followed anymore?

We are to follow the Law. Jesus said: Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from. the law, till all be fulfilled."

We do not have animal sacrifices because they tore down the temple and right now the Muslims control the temple mount. If the Hebrews were to gain control then they would set up a tent and return to animal sacrifices. This is exactly what will happen during the 7 year tribulation period.

 

[Soyeong]

So then why does God demand so many sacrifices?

In Exodus, it ends with the glory of God descending on the tent of meeting and the problem that no one was able to approach, while in Leviticus, it begins with God calling out instructions for how to approach or to draw near to him, and that is what the root word means, so offerings are about drawing close to God. They are also there to teaching about Messiah and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. I recommend this study on Finding Messiah in Leviticus:

The Book of Leviticus- Torah audio teaching Rabbi Stan Farr

And this one on how the Temple teaches about Messiah:

Temple Service study of Jerusalem temple, in the 1st century

These studies are done from the perspective of a Jewish believer in Messiah, so they have a much greater depth of understanding of the cultural background.

 

[Kylie]

In Exodus, it ends with the glory of God descending on the tent of meeting and the problem that no one was able to approach, while in Leviticus, it begins with God calling out instructions for how to approach or to draw near to him, and that is what the root word means, so offerings are about drawing close to God. They are also there to teaching about Messiah and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. I recommend this study on Finding Messiah in Leviticus:

The Book of Leviticus- Torah audio teaching Rabbi Stan Farr

And this one on how the Temple teaches about Messiah:

Temple Service study of Jerusalem temple, in the 1st century

These studies are done from the perspective of a Jewish believer in Messiah, so they have a much greater depth of understanding of the cultural background.

This does not answer my question. it does not even come CLOSE to answering my question.

Why does God want us to kill animals? You say it's for offerings so we can get close to God, but why does that require us to kill animals?