The Temple, and The Priesthood

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom and welcome Ruchamah,

I think you are essentially correct. Of course because of the work of Messiah Yeshua we have a new way through the Ruach Hakodesh that we can come to The Eternal One. But, I think it may be a different case when it comes to coming in our flesh into the direct presence of the Shekinyah. We do see examples of ritual cleanliness prior to the construction of the Mishkan when it comes to coming into close proximity of the Eternal One. In the book of Shemot (Exo.) it states,

19:10 YHVH said to Moses, “Go to the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments, 19:11 and be ready against the third day; for on the third day YHVH will come down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai. 19:12 You shall set bounds to the people all around, saying, ‘Be careful that you don’t go up onto the mountain, or touch its border. Whoever touches the mountain shall be surely put to death. 19:13 No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it is animal or man, he shall not live.’ When the shofar sounds long, they shall come up to the mountain.”
19:14 Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. 19:15 He said to the people, “Be ready by the third day. Don’t have sexual relations with a woman.”

Shalom aleychem,

Re’u’el

[Ruchamah]

Shalom Reuel, and thank you for the response.

When I consider Abraham Isaac and Jacob it SEEMS that they enter into a higher form of worship with their altar-building and sacrifices, but i dont see them *making atonement* for their own sin in these incidents.

I really appreciate your insights into the altar service, and have a few qwestions that maybe you can help with.

Probably the most important is the identification of the *lamb of G-d* in the altar service. When i came to faith in messiah, i believed that when John said, Behold, the Lanmb of G-d!, that he was speaking of the Passover Lamb. I no longer believe that.

In my studies i have pretty much concluded that the Tamid offering BEST represents the Lamb of G-d offering: It is the bookend of each day, it is identified with no one but the Almighty (ie, no one lays hands on it). I believe the tamid was a ONCE FOR ALL offering, and that each tamid that follows is simply a continuation of the ONE LAMB. No offering is acceptable unless it is in place, etc etc.

Any thoughts?
Ruchamah

[Ruchamah]

Next qwestion, since the first didnt get any bites:

MelchiTzedek is the name of a person and the name of the ORDER of a priesthood.

One of the proofs of this priesthood is endless life.

MelchiTzedek could not have been a High priest, because he had endless life, and Yeshua is HP after order of MelchiTzedek. Does this mean that MelchiTzedek of Beresheit is just *one of the priests* of that particular order. If so, why is the ORDER named after him?

This qwestion came up today while a few of us were listening to the Hebrews study.

The other issue that came up was this:

Can we compare the Messiah *laying aside His glory* with the High Priest laying aside his garments of beauty and glory in the Yom Kippur service?
The Messiah, like the HP, took upon him the simple linen garment (sinless life) and dwelt among us as one of us.

If this is so, is it possible that the reason He came to earth was to sanctify the Heavenly House (and all that includes, ppl and things), but had to submit Himself to written here on earth, as the is the instruction for BOTH priesthoods?

Thanks for replies!
Ruchamah

[inthewind]

Ruchamah
In my studies i have pretty much concluded that the Tamid offering BEST represents the Lamb of G-d offering: It is the bookend of each day, it is identified with no one but the Almighty (ie, no one lays hands on it). I believe the tamid was a ONCE FOR ALL offering, and that each tamid that follows is simply a continuation of the ONE LAMB. No offering is acceptable unless it is in place, etc etc.

I believe you are correct in this thinking. I would also like to hear additional comments on this point. Are there any scriptures which may shed some light on this?

[Ruchamah]

Hi Inthewind, and ty for your reply:

Well. if you look at the tamid offering, it began each day's Temple/tabernacle service, and ended each day's service. No offerings were put on the altar UNLESS the tamid was there. In the original instructions re: the tamid, there is an interesting verse:
Ex 29:43 And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.

The words *the tabernacle* are NOT in the text, and i haven't been able to decide on a satisfactory translation. lol

All the other animal sacrifices, except the tamid, the Pesach and the red heifer, someone lays hands on, by way of identification. It is interesting that all three of these sacrifices are referenced, at times obliquely, as relating to Messiah in the Brit.

Also, once the tamid was interrupted, it was no longer a sanctified altar, or so it seems from Daniel 8 and Daniel 11.

Basically, everything offered, every service rendered, in the worship of El Elyon had to be done BETWEEN the tamid offerings.

As I told a friend, I pretty much live on square one, so this is probably nothing new to you, just my thoughts on it.

In Messiah,
Ruchamah

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Ruchamah,

We are all learning together and none of us has all the answers yet. You have some very interesting insights that I will meditate upon.

In regards to Shemot (Exo.) 29:43 the Hebrew word "sham" is used to communicate "there" (as in a place). It speaks of Adonai's glory sanctifying His sons (children of Yisrael). The place where His glory was revealed was in the Tabernacle. Not all versions put the word "tabernacle" in the text. Many just speak of the place being sanctified by Adonai's glory. The context would dictate the "Tabernacle" even if the word is not present because this is where the glory of Adonai appeared. Even though I don't condone placing a word in the text that does not exist, this is why some translators did this. It would be better translated as thus,

"And I will meet the sons of Yisrael there and it shall be sanctified by My glory. "

Shalom,

Reuel

[Ruchamah]

Hi Reuel,

Thanks for the reply, and i would rush to agree with that translation, but would have to take into consideration the next verse. Here is v. 42, followed by your transaltion of v. 43, followed by v.44, as it appears in KJV:

This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.
And I will meet the sons of Yisrael there and it shall be sanctified by My glory.And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office.


I realize that I am maybe stretching it here, but maybe the supplied *it* refers back to the Tamid and could be *it, the Tanmid*... and then, ALSO the Tabernacle and the altar and the priests.

The *sons of Israel* did not enter into the Holy or Most Holy Place, so this is referring to the outer court, the altar where the Tamid was offered. He would *meet them there*, at the Tamid.

So much to be amazed by in His Wonderful Word! He astounds me with His beauty! So complex and yet so simple!

Thanks again Reuel!
Ruchamah

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Ruchamah,

I think you have some great points that help us all revisit (and in some cases visit) these passages to study them out. The "it" really doesn't exist in the Hebrew. In regards to the "there" or "place", the preceding context seems to tell us what is being sanctified. The previous verse states,

Shemot (Exo.) 29:42 "Through all your generations this is to be the regular burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting before YHVH. There is where I will meet with you to speak with you."

So, then we read the next verse (and another translation of mine),

"And I will meet there the sons of Yisrael and [it] shall be sanctified by My glory."

Because the "it" which normally could be the Hebrew word "hu" doesn't really exist in the Hebrew text...it could be that the Sons of Yisrael are the ones being sanctified. But, the previous context and the verse afterwards speak of the "ohel" (tent/tabernacle) being sanctified along with the altar. I believe everything is being sanctified here, but the surrounding context seems to be leaning heavily on the Tabernacle in general.

But as I said earlier, I think your thoughts merit further study. Thank you for the discussion.

Baruch HaShem!

Reuel

[Melville]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post and it is about a fairly narrow point to start with.

Why was Ezekiel shown the vision of the Temple, will it be built, and, if so, when?

43:5-12 ¡§. . . And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. He said to me, ¡¥Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, WHERE I WILL DWELL AMONG THE SONS OF ISRAEL FOREVER. And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die, by setting their threshold by My threshold and their door post beside My door post, with only the wall between Me and them. And they have defiled My holy name by their abominations which they have committed. So I have consumed them in My anger. Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses of their kings far from Me; and I will dwell among them forever.

As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, THAT THEY MAY BE ASHAMED OF THEIR INIQUITIES; and let them measure the plan. IF THEY ARE ASHAMED of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them. This is the law of the house: its entire area on the top of the mountain all around shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house.¡¦¡¨

I¡¦ve capitalized words and phrases that strike me as having direct bearing but I¡¦m not sure about the English at some points.

Re¡¦u¡¦el or others, please help with the Hebrew translations.
¡§WHERE I WILL DWELL AMONG THE SONS OF ISRAEL FOREVER.¡¨

Here there are two operative words, ¡§will dwell¡¨ and ¡§forever¡¨.

Is there a future verb tense here in ¡§I will dwell forever¡¨ or is it more like ¡§I dwell¡¨ and the tense is subject to interpretation? ¡§Forever¡¨ sounds straightforward- meaning there is no end to it- but I am not sure about this either for reasons I¡¦ll try to explain. This has bearing on whether we are obligated to take this as meaning the temple will be built as well as the vitally related question of when.

Reading down we come to an explanation of why the vision was given- ¡§THAT THEY MAY BE ASHAMED OF THEIR INIQUITIES.¡¨ Then there follow the conjunction, ¡§IF¡¨. ¡¨If they are ashamed¡¨ the prophet was told to make know the design and the statues so that they might do them. Here also arises the question of when.

Right then, while they are in Babylon? When they built the 2nd Temple? There was a great deal said about God¡¦s pleasure in building the 2nd Temple but they didn¡¦t have this whole setup included in rest of the book, with the prescriptions for the Prince and so forth. Herod¡¦s Temple didn¡¦t have this either as far as I know.

If there is another one to be built before the return of Christ (Messiah), as many believe, this cannot be that one either. For one thing the Glory of God enters this one, whereas a 4th Temple (or 3rd, depending on whether one thinks Herod¡¦s was only a remodel) is commonly thought to be the place where the abomination of desolation is set up, which is antithetical to God¡¦s glory having come in to rest. (I once met a zealous young man who was involved with Witness Lee¡¦s ¡§Local Church¡¨ group. He traveled to Israel a lot and told me he hoped he might be able to help rebuild the temple. As I think about it, it¡¦s hard to imagine why anyone, Jew or Gentile, would be excited about rebuilding the temple if they believe the antichrist is just going to come into it. I mean I personally would want somebody else to do that job, not me, if I believed this ƒº).

But this Temple is usually assumed to be built during the Millennium. Having read the Bible and the end times prophesies for many years, I can¡¦t recall a place where it specifically says this. It¡¦s not stated in Revelation 20. It takes bringing a number of passages together and I¡¦m tempted to say that it really amounts to a process of elimination more than clearly definitive statements in scripture.

Here¡¦s where my problem over the words ¡§forever¡¨ and ¡§I will dwell¡¨ comes in. A thousand years is not forever, as we use the word. In Revelation 21 and 22 we see a new heaven and a new earth. The former things have passed away. We now have the Bride, the wife of the Lamb- the New Jerusalem, and here there is no Temple, for the Lord God and the Lamb are the Temple, it says.

Now to go back to the verb tense of ¡§I will dwell.¡¨ On the face of it, it sounds like saying God is, at some point in the future, not right then, going to come in and dwell there. But I wonder if it could mean this was the Plan of God¡¦s dwelling place in the midst of Israel and how it was supposed to be set up, to be compared with what they did with it.

And back to ¡§that they may be ashamed . . .¡¨ This is the stated reason for the vision. They had desecrated the temple, but this was what was intended. The way it ought to be- the Law of the House.

In a couple of places in previous posts I read the word, ¡§spiritualized.¡¨ Something that evangelical fundamentalists typically believe is that the bible needs to be taken ¡§literally¡¨, by which they mean physically. Everything has got to be fulfilled in a physical sense on the earth for them to believe it is real. They have problems with this in places, over when a thing is symbolic and when not. I would like to make the distinction between ¡§spiritualizing¡¨ and what actually is spiritual.

If we must have this temple and service to be physically instituted (and I¡¦ve noted some difficulties with this), to be satisfied that it is real, we may be missing something. I mean if that is the main, important thing to us.

Surely all these measurements and protocols MEAN something. They can¡¦t be arbitrary. They are meant to convey meaning.

For example, as we go on in the book we come to the water flowing from the threshold. Is this just water? Or is it meant to say something about the Living Water? Is this distinct from the Living Water that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and in John 7:38 as welling up from within a person or is it symbolic of the same? Should we be satisfied with it being just plain old water or is it, in essence, speaking spiritually?

Two verses come to mind in this regard. ¡§The words I speak unto you are spirit and are life¡¨ (John 6:63) and ¡§the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy¡¨ (Revelation 19:10). Are Ezekiel¡¦s words and the words of Jesus here mutually exclusive, operating in basically separate realms, or are they in the same Spirit and ultimately the same sphere of things? Which is more real, the spiritual or the physical? I come down on the side of the spiritual, for God is the ultimate reality it was His Son who said to the same woman at the well, ¡§God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.¡¨ The true worship of God is not outward but has to do with the interior parts of man.

I had wanted to write some thoughts about the restrictions and divisions between the allotments to the Levitical priests and the Prince in the end part of Ezekiel, which in the Messiah are joined together, priest and king, but that will have to wait . . .


Yours in Christ,

Melville

[Ruchamah]

Hi Melville,
The words u asked about in Ezek 43, Dwell and Forever, are SHAKAN and OLAM: SHAKAN, where we get the word SHEKINAH, means to sit or dwell, OLAM means *past the horizon*, translated *forever*. The word Shakan is imperfect, ie, future tense, I will dwell.

IMO, the Temple will be built during the Millenial kingdom, (by us, should we live to see the day!), the sacrifices, as outlined in Leviticus and Ezekiel will be done. There is no *high priest* pre se, in Ezekiel's vision: rather someone called the PRINCE seems to be in charge of offering sacrifices for himself and the people. There are also Levites, the sons of Zadok, who are involved in the Avodah (service in the Temple).

QUOTE:
Here¡¦s where my problem over the words ¡§forever¡¨ and ¡§I will dwell¡¨ comes in. A thousand years is not forever, as we use the word. In Revelation 21 and 22 we see a new heaven and a new earth. The former things have passed away. We now have the Bride, the wife of the Lamb- the New Jerusalem, and here there is no Temple, for the Lord God and the Lamb are the Temple, it says.

Actually, Rev says:
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


There is no need for a Temple, it seems, because the Lamb is actually WITH US on earth, along with the Lord G-d and the glory of G-d, after the New Heavens and Earth are created.

I think, Melville, that the basic difficulty mopst people have with the passages from Ezekiel is that we have been misinfomed about the purpose and function of the Temple/altar service. In order to help clear up some very bad misinformation, I would direct you to the study on Hebrews at www.bereansonline.org. It is outstanding and will shed new light on all of Scripture!

May He bless you as you study!
Ruchamah

[Otto]

I have some questions that I would like to ask. I have never studied much on
The Temple and The Priesthood. But recently I have been challenged on said subject and would like to learn, Therefore questions.


There is no temple today; therefore there can be no sacrifices?

the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom at that moment our Lord gave up his spirit and that he is also our high priest, in the order of Melchizedek, and there is therefore no earthly temple or high priest.?

So for this reason we do not make these offerings; we can not.?

[Prodigal Girl]

Correct. Remember that the temple has been destroyed more than once, and each time, sacrifice was not able to be offered for a number of decades or more because of that. Think of Daniel who was in exile; unable to do sacrifices because there was no temple and he also was not there.

[Mark]

The only place that sacrifices can be done is in Jerusalem at the Temple.

But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD: And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you. Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.
(Deu 12:10-14 KJV)

The between the Holy PLace and the Most Holy PLace is called, in Rabbinical tradition, "The Garment of God." The significance, then that the veil was rent was not to invalidate the sacrificial system but to represent the grief of the Father, in seeing the death of His Son. The rending of the veil would not represent the abbrogation or dissolvement of the sacrificial system. To the Jewish mind, the loss of the Ark of the Covenant (several years earlier) would have been more suggestive that the sacrificial system was invalid. In fact, there were sects within the ultra-orthodox of that day that believed the Sacrifices were not valid during Messiah's time because this was not a Jewish Temple but was, rather erected (actually more like remodeled or renovated) by Herod, a gentile. These rabbis taught as Paul would later suggest, that the Tabernacle of God is the heart of the Jew: that His Spirit resides within us, not in buildings made of stone.

Whether or not the Temple system will be restored in the future is a matter or some debate- a debate which I am not qualified to hold a definitive opinion. There are arguments on both sides that are very convincing that either the sacrificial system will be restored or that it is no longer a piece of Adonai's continuing revelation. Yet, please read my Parashah for this week: that if we fail to understand the physical elements He has shown us for worship, we will never fully grasp the realities of the spiritual things.

Even under the Sacrificial System, the Jew does not believe that he was saved by the blood of goats and bulls but by Adonai's mercy. The sacrifice was, in the early days a testament of faith that the Messiah would come one day to redeem His people. After the resurrection, the thinking would not need to change for the believers and the sacrificial system would be no less relevant: instead of worshipping with hope, they would continue to worship in joy of what Messiah had already done, participating fully in the Temple worship with a fuller understanding than they had before Messiah came.

[Prodigal Girl]

Question:
Do we have Jewish writings other than the New Testament, that demonstrated an understanding of the connection between the sacrifices and the Messiah coming?

[Melville]

Thank you, Ruchamah, for the translations.

It still seems to me that we are obliged to modify our conception of "forever" here if we think this temple will be built during the "millenium". There is nothing said about building any temple in the passage in the Revelation where it speaks of certain people reigning with Christ for 1000 years. In view of eternity 1000 years is a drop in the bucket, though with God a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years as one day. If the account ended there we'd have less difficulty but it goes on to a time when there is a new heaven and a new earth and the former things have passed away. Then the dwelling of God with man will have become complete and there will need no temple in the New Jerusalem because there is no longer a separation between man and God. As long as there is a temple with protocols and limitations of who can come near and when, that unity will not be complete.

I'm still very much inclined to take Ezekiel's temple scenario as a view to the intended spiritual pattern, which stands in utter contrast to what the prophet was led to see going on in Jerusalem at that time.

About the Prince, as I read Ezekiel there is a clear separation between the priests and the prince. But in Zechariah we are told of a man whose name is Branch or Sprout who will build the The Temple of the Lord and he will sit as a priest on his throne. We find that the Messiah, the Chist is both priest and king, so that the two offices are no longer separate.

Thanks for your responses,

Melville

ruchamah said:

Hi Melville,
The words u asked about in Ezek 43, Dwell and Forever, are SHAKAN and OLAM: SHAKAN, where we get the word SHEKINAH, means to sit or dwell, OLAM means *past the horizon*, translated *forever*. The word Shakan is imperfect, ie, future tense, I will dwell.

IMO, the Temple will be built during the Millenial kingdom, (by us, should we live to see the day!), the sacrifices, as outlined in Leviticus and Ezekiel will be done. There is no *high priest* pre se, in Ezekiel's vision: rather someone called the PRINCE seems to be in charge of offering sacrifices for himself and the people. There are also Levites, the sons of Zadok, who are involved in the Avodah (service in the Temple).

QUOTE:
Here¡¦s where my problem over the words ¡§forever¡¨ and ¡§I will dwell¡¨ comes in. A thousand years is not forever, as we use the word. In Revelation 21 and 22 we see a new heaven and a new earth. The former things have passed away. We now have the Bride, the wife of the Lamb- the New Jerusalem, and here there is no Temple, for the Lord God and the Lamb are the Temple, it says.

Actually, Rev says:
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


There is no need for a Temple, it seems, because the Lamb is actually WITH US on earth, along with the Lord G-d and the glory of G-d, after the New Heavens and Earth are created.

I think, Melville, that the basic difficulty mopst people have with the passages from Ezekiel is that we have been misinfomed about the purpose and function of the Temple/altar service. In order to help clear up some very bad misinformation, I would direct you to the study on Hebrews at www.bereansonline.org. It is outstanding and will shed new light on all of Scripture!

May He bless you as you study!
Ruchamah