• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Will sacrifices be reinstated?

Notice the comparison of what is being cleansed. Old Covenant sacrifice was for the external, the New Covenant sacrifice is for the internal (conscience/soul).
Also check out Isaiah 1. Isaiah was already condemning their sacrifices and feast days 700 years BC. in regard to sin
In regard to a revived temple system, the biggest issue with it is the high priest, or the one who has the authority to sanctify himself, the other priests, the temple, altars and furniture for worship, let alone sacrifice. On Sinai, God appointed Moses as mediator who then began the process of sanctification with Aaron. Aaron alone had no authority or unction to offer anything acceptable unto God until sanctified by the mediator. In the first Temple, Solomon held that position of mediator/legislator (in type). In the rebuilt Temple, there was still a succeeding Aaronic High priest, Jeshua, so no need for a mediator. However, today it would be impossible to verify an Aaronic high priest. The last one on record fled to Egypt from Antiochus Epiphanes (who killed all of the other ones) in about 175-177 BC. Later when the Hasmoneans took power, they refused to let him assume the position of High Priest. From that point forward, till the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, there was not a legitimate Aaronic High priest presiding over the sacrifices.
In Luke 3 we see the anointing of Jesus Christ as the dearly beloved Son of God as the sent mediator/legislator (the paterfamilias or kinsman redeemer whose shoe latchet John was not worthy to loose as a Levitical Priest) and what follows this announcement is a genealogy proving that He is the Son of God. The point of this being that from that moment forward, it was only a matter of time until the mediator instituted another priesthood, not a substitute priesthood as the Aaronic one was for the firstborn (see exodus 13:2, 19:5,6, 32:26-28, Num. 3:12,13&41) but a priesthood where the whole nation would be of kings and priests before God. (Compare the foot washing scene in the upper room with the sanctification of Aaron and his sons)
This is why Ezekiel 46 is sooo important. The Prince (the Son of the King and the commanding general of the army) enters Jerusalem on the specific day that was a sabbath and a new moon (Feast of Trumpets). The eastern gate is open after the six days of work (a day as a thousand years?) and he begins sacrifices & Feast Day(s) again. However these sacrifices appear to be following a pattern or a count I'm unfamiliar with. Very minimalistic. The continuous daily sacrifice appears to be only in the morning as opposed to morning and evening. It also appears to be a strictly voluntary sacrifice, not compelled due to sin.
Which brings us to the question of a well meaning Jewish population attempting to revive Temple sacrifices as a temporary covering for sin while waiting on the Messiah. I would argue that this was the reason for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary spoken of in Daniel 9:26&27. Christ confirmed the covenant and caused the sacrifice and oblation (Passover specifically) to cease in the midst of the week. The Jews refusal to accept God's perfect Lamb as the final payment for sin and the resulting continuation of the sacrifices became the abomination in His House as if they cut off a dog's neck or offered swines blood (Isaiah 66:3) So God made it impossible for them to continue to do so. . .because they knew not the time of thy visitation. Luke 19:44
IMHO reinstituted sacrifices would have the same effect as sprinkling babies. It's a placebo that has no positive internal effect in the eyes of Jehovah. It does nothing to circumcise the heart and is in direct opposition to His spoken/revealed WORD.
Moses in Exodus 23:20,21 states that God will send an Angel before thee. . . . Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. In Deuteronomy 18:18 Moses writes as God directs, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses] and will put my words in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

They have the law and the prophets, they have the witness of the heavens, many today who are truly seeking are having visions of the Messiah as spoken of in Joel, there is a wealth of information available online about the true Messiah. Anyone who is truly seeking will find Him knocking on their hearts door.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's take the sanctification aspect out of it. Forget a covering or forgiveness.

Would YHWY accept these sacrifices as a form of worship??? Would it be a sweet smelling savor in his nostrils, or would he vomit it out?

Lest you think I'm being ridiculous, and asking silly questions, there is a method to my madness. The original article attached to this was in regards to renstituting polygamy in Israel by edict of a few rabbis, etc. I presume they want to return to the ways of their fathers in multiple ways.

What responses would we make to those who would deny our understanding of polygamy as believers in Yeshua Hamashiach, yet rejecting the sacrificial system? We are told that we want to return to a dead/defunct system of law that allowed polygyny and reject "grace". I understand the separation of the sacrificial laws from the civil laws because of a perfect sacrifice, but what would the average outsider think of us? Wouldn't we be accused of cherry picking the Law?
 
One thing I'm still trying to wrap my mind around is pure religion and undefiled before God. As best I can tell, that translates equally between Old Covenant and New. To take care of the widows and the fatherless or orphans. James 1:27

Along the same lines, I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of 1 Tim. 5:17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor. The common interpretation of this phrase is that it's subject is the pastor of the church. From the studying of the passage that I have done so far, I have an issue with restricting it to that position. In the context of the passage, this phrase comes just after the admonition to faithful men (pistos) to care for their widows. (Obviously not a woman who was married to them). It seems in the passage above that there were two types of widows. One that was married to one man her entire life and is of good reputation, thus qualifying her for assistance from the church as a true widow older than 60 yrs. However, if she has male kin, then they are responsible for her care and protection not the assembly. The other type appears to be a woman, less than 60 years old, young enough to bear children or still have them at home. Paul's admonition is that they should marry, but whom?

The only answer that I see in the passage is the admonition to faithful men to care for their widows. Is this a kinsman redeemer/ Adown scenario? Under the kinsman redeemer, the widow was restricted from marrying outside the family. It was forbidden. I find a similar scenario in 1 Cor 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

From the plain language of I Cor 7:39, it appears to be a modification on the Old Covenant kinsman redeemer law. In this passage it appears that there is no restriction on which man she is allowed to marry, as long as he is of the family of Yahovah. That being said, my own personal opinion is that it would simplify things SO much in light of our culture if the faithful man was being called on to care for his brothers widow. (Last names, medical etc.)

All that to say, IMHO, the best answer that can ever be given in support of more than one woman under an Adown is that you are diligently submitting yourself to your Adowni to practice pure religion. The distinction between Covenants could be a separate issue. This is one of the commandments that transcend both covenants. Existing prior to and continuing after the Sinai Covenant. Though not equal to, similar to the commandment that thou shalt have no other gods before me or being restricted from eating something with the blood still in it.

BTW If anyone has any additional info on the correct understanding on the pure religion topic, or clarification on 1 Tim 5:17 I'm all ears.
 
I ask only in light of what comments I get from others when I discuss polygyny.

Most often it's the "we don't live under the Law, but under grace". Some bring up sacrifices, etc. and insist the Law is dead (even if they do their own cherry picking by tithing, no tattoos, non-homosexuality).

There are other topics on here, plus writings by Dr. Luck that discuss the harmony of the testaments.

Regardless, the verses you all mentioned discussed marriage, which is not part of the sacrificial laws.

Over the years I have begun to respect Torah more and more, so much so that I've actually gone down the road to preparations for taking a second wife! But my respect for Torah has challenged me to probe this issue in my mind.

I believe all the previous verses you presented and agree that animal sacrifice is totally unnecessary for a believer in Yeshua. It would improve nothing in our eternal relationship with the Almighty....but....would it be a sin, or evil in God's eyes for a believer to offer them up as worship, or a non-believing Jew to offer them up for a sin offering?

Example being the tithe: Under Grace, must we tithe? No. But a person with a good conscience will give to a local assembly for the promotion of the gospel locally and worldwide and to support a bishop. Does it earn one extra brownie points for eternity? Not really. It is part of a worshipful heart toward God and scripture seems to indicate that it really blesses the one who gives "sacrificially".

So......would a physical sacrifice fall under the same thing?

I can't speak for all on this forum, but most do not believe we MUST follow the law, and that polygyny is permitted by God (and sometimes commanded) according to a study of the Law and non-prohibition in the NT. Which is why I ask "would animal sacrifices be considered by God as part of worship?" I believe someone else brought up the fact that we see them being offered up in the Millenial kingdom....why? For what purpose?? If then, why not now???
 
That's an interesting perspective. Not sure I've ever thought about it that way before.

In regards to law versus grace, if the law allows it, how can grace restrict it? Does grace not offer/provide more liberty?
 
Which leads us back to polygyny...if the law allowed it....how does grace somehow magically restrict it?????

If we accept that premise....how could we condemn animal sacrifices if done as an act of worship???

It wouldn't improve our eternal destination, but would it bring condemnation?

Note: this is all a mental exercise. I don't plan on sacrificing lambs...they taste wayyyyy too good!
 
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Hebrews 13:15,16

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Above when he said, † Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Hebrews 10:5,6,8

But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. Philippians 4:18

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he saidunto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Mark 12:32,33,34
 
Any new input on this?
 
My feeling is that Ezekiel 40-48 have not yet been fulfilled, but that those chapters will by no means go unfulfilled, which means that sooner or later there will be more sacrifices.

I don't quite know what to make of WHEN this could happen. I could see some things in this passage that lead me to believe that Jesus himself will be in residence at this time. It's confusing to me.

I believe I suffer the same confusion regarding the restored temple that Pharisees would have experienced while puzzling out just how the Gentiles would benefit from the Messiah. Their best guesses were bound to be inaccurate because guessing the mind of the Lord isn't easy, even when cribbing off of His notes.

But dag nabbit, those Levites have a job to do and they have to eat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top