Nazarene Space

Question for discussion:

Why is the tribe of Dan excluded from the 144,000?

Views: 1123

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 You gave good copy to what I posted earlier, a few sends ago. Right now are strange beliefs of which remind one of British-Israelism. This, were we see some claiming eliteness by purported nationality. 

 Our boast must be of the being in the Tribe of Yeshua, if you see how I apply this. 

Thank you.

It is improbable that Danites are Danish or from any other Northern European Country. I expect the two witnesses to confront the Ashkenaz, Gog, Amalek, Edom anti-missionaries.
Gog, Ashkenaz, Amalek and Edomites come exclusively from the North (Eze 38 &39) , but the real Israelites come from the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle
 East per the prophesy in Isaiah 11:10-12....that is the four corners of the earth (eretz)  per the scriptures

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 
Isa 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 
Isa 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.


Christopher Hernandez said:

Danites are probably the Danish. Are there any famous Danish Jews anywhere? 


In reply to Christopher ,

     In the reading of history, seen is, that the people of Israel went everywhere. Read accounts of Denmark in WWII, and Norway. 

A Shul of reknown was in Denmark.

Ascribing meaning to sounds as ways of discovery can be useful. And yet, in many words there are homonyms that have severe meanings that are not publishable .

Here is a, "clean" one: Feces or Faces. 



A.J. Hoffman said:

EARLY CHRISTIAN SAW DAN AS CONTRA MESSIANIC

PERHAPS THEN, AS NOW :The schisms, apostasia , zealous graspers for position,

even to setting discord amongst brethren. Then too, if we place all out for events prior, and  David is no good for his sin, and any seed is nixed from the redemption, even Yeshua. Please let us be careful.

My head is spinning with all of the good points (and some noble speculations) brought to light here. I particularly like the comparison "153" made between the tribes and the apostles at the Last Supper.

Speculation though it may be on my part, Judas was blessed at the washing of his feet, yet those same feet turned against the Lord mid-supper as Judas ran out to betray Jesus. Latter the position Judas held was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:26). Could this parallel the replacement of Dan by the Levi as the new twelfth tribe?

It would be interesting to know the lineage of Matthias. Since of the twelve apostles Matthew was of Levi, of whom then was Matthias? Since this is all speculation, perhaps I am making too much of it. After all, every one of the apostles will be involved in some phase of judgement (the "Dan" of Israel) as they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30).  The passages do not state that each will be judging their own tribe. This would not be reasonable since James and John, and Peter and Andrew were sets of brothers, thus from their same tribe(s).

In these above passages from Matthew and Luke, Jesus spoke to Judas as one of the twelve. Did his later replacement remove his place (as is most likely) or merely fill a vacancy? We tend to think of this as a replacement of Judas (as it may well have been), but how does this, if it does at all, parallel the situation with the tribe of Dan?

Furthermore, if Dan, despite his apostasy (Judas-like betrayal) has become the pivotal point in the development of so many Western hither to idolatrous heathen nations, as "Laurie R Giesler" proposes (certainly as much or more to the North of Israel as those nations are West – as Dan was to the North of the sanctuary per "Brian Sandridge's" biblical insights), and if Dan is therefore outside of the twelve tribes as such in Revelation seven's counting of the 144,000, then would Dan not then at least be represented massively within the “innumerable” converted mixed multitude of Revelation 7:9, which follows the listing of the tribes from which the 144,000 are composed?

Another legitimate question that needs to be considered is whether the 144.000 come only from literal physical descendants of the twelve tribes, or can those grafted in be assigned tribes, perhaps based on their similarities of character or personality to each of the corresponding patriarchs? Just a thought. The Lord knows what is not presently given to mankind.

Nothing SOLID here in any of this. It is all as Midrashic ramblings in "squabblings” over nothing of lasting import. The true Judge of Israel, Jesus, whose appointment is noted in John 5:22, 27, 30; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim. 4:8; and Rev. 19:11, reveals His rule is not entirely comprised of negative judgments, but also those which are full of not only righteousness, but replete with repentance and forgiveness (Acts 5:13).  I pray those of Dan will be judged in mercy and his descendants will be grafted back in (Romans 11:23-24). I pray that we, whether natural or wild olive branches, by the grace of the Most High, will find favor in His sight.

In all of my remarks on this topic presented here today, I have spoken off the top of my head. I have done no research on the subject other than that needed to find the text references concerning passages that came to mind. I do have a few resources in my library I may take time to read later; if I have time. If I do, I will post again with perhaps something more scholarly, solid, and better researched thoughts. Until then, thank you all for your time and insights; Shalom.

James Trimm said:

If Yeshua had "ordained" a "new priesthood" "during the last supper" he would have added to the Torah and the Torah (Deut. 13) would thus require us to reject him as a false prophet.

 

You shall not add to the word which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:2)

Whatever thing I command you, observe to do it:
you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
(Deuteronomy 13:1(12:32))

 

As already pointed out by others in this forum, there were both promises of further information from a Prophet like unto Moses (the Messiah) and by other lesser prophets. If what you propose were true, that no changes at all could ever be made to any biblical statement, or to its understanding, we would be in trouble. 

Can new information be added in the form of expansion of mankind's understanding of what was already written? Can that which is later given under inspiration include that which was not previously revealed? What if supposedly new ideas are found only in embryo form in the Pentateuch? Can these ideas not be expanded upon even if that expansion enlarges or even changes our understanding of the text as we originally perceived it?

The answer should be, “of course we can!” If our understanding is limited only to literal translations, to the letter of the law, then why are we even looking for a deeper or better understanding of the Word in this forum?

If we are limited to the literal translation of Deut.13:1 (12:32) as you quoted it, rather than by a comparative, full Scripture definition and explanation of the passage, then we may have an improper hermeneutic. Taken too rigidly Deut.13:1 would eliminate this forum and its open discussions. The Talmud, all of the later prophets after Moses, wisdom literature, and even portions of the Psalms, and portions of the accounts of history within the current cannon would become unacceptable additions for many of them build on the legal, prophetic, and theological foundations of their predecessors both after and within the writings of Moses.

I propose that the law is UNCHANGEABLE as is confirmed by Old and New Testaments alike (Matt.5:18). Even the Messiah's "new commandment" was merely an expansion on an old principle, but in so restating and clarifying it, it became as something new to its hearers and later readers (John 13:34).  In the same way, John, while adding nothing new (1 John 2:7) "no new commandment," at the same time gave a "new commandment" (1 John 2:8-9) clarifying the intent of the old.

Sometimes God’s instructions are conditional, sometimes they are for a limited place or time and therefore temporary. The rules do not change, yet not all rule applications are universal; circumstances do change and that changes the application. Many laws do not apply to all people in all situations and times. On rare occasions the laws themselves change as humanity, or at least God’s people, mature and progress; or else regress.

Such changes are significant in terms of fallen mankind, but they do not change God, His plan, His purpose, His character, or His desire to redeem and save us; ultimately to restore us fully. But outwardly, there are some laws that require a change of perspective and perception to actually understand them. These laws the Messiah came to clarify. If mankind would accept His authority and reasoning they would accept the spirit rather than the letter.  Just consider the many examples in Matthew 5:21-6:4 alone. These redefine murder in terms of anger and hash words, adultery as a lustful look, most types of divorce as sin (although originally allowed my Moses due to the hardness of men’s hearts—Matt.19:8), counsel not to swear falsely is changed to better not to swear at all, turning the exacting harshest penalties legally allowed into forgiveness even and especially towards one’s enemies, and charity towards all without pride or self-recognition demanded or desired.  Now these do not even include the rabbinic thoughts on things like riches that He turned upside down in Luke 16:19-31; 18:22-27, or the twists He put on Hillel, as you yourself point out, like making our relationships proactive by changing “Don’t do to others what you would not want them to do to you” into “Do unto others what you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31). No, the previous examples were changes to the letter of the Pentateuch, bringing them into the Spirit (Rom.7:6; 2 Cor.3:6). These were changes, even at the time Jesus gave them, which were shocking changes that changed nothing (concerning God) and everything (about how we should respond to Him and each other).  

Could not the revealing of, rather than an institution of, a new order of priesthood be an expansion of what was meant by a 'kingdom of priests" (Exo.19:6) combined with the priesthood which is "after the order of Melchisedec” (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 20, 21) which, unlike that of Aaron / Levi, would "be forever" or "without end" (Heb. 7:21)(Without detracting from the place of those of that tribe in Heaven or in the New Earth)?  

Explanation or expansion does CHANGE things (details), but it doesn’t change the plan. It reveals the original plan. It can change our perception and conception of its meaning and intent. Such exploration can help diligent searchers for truth to be more Christ-like as they are led by the Holy Spirit.

-----------

I believe it was 153 plus my response to 153 that originally recognized a possible parallel of Judas at the Lord’s Supper with the exclusion of the idolatrous tribe of Dan from the 144,000 in Rev.7. Although I neither endorsed nor repudiated the idea.  However, I do not recall that this supposed change of priesthood was a part of that discussion. In searching I could not find it for some reason.  But I do not recall anything like that having been said.

However, if a new priesthood was, at that time, conferred upon the twelve, or even put on an order of persons based on any later apostleship as a spiritually gifted ministry, which I am not saying it was, it would not have been out of order on the basis of your argument against change.  It would not be impossible on the basis of your argument that to have done so would be in violation of the prohibition concerning change. Change is fine as long as that change is a conceptual change or paradigm shift hidden perhaps, but contained within the original content of all that the Scripture says on that topic. Thus it is not an intrinsic change, but rather a shift in understanding of a previous conception of the order of things as ordained by God. Like prophecy, certain of God’s laws may come with or without expressed limiting conditions. 

The best argument against the conferral of priesthood at the Last Supper is that it is neither expressed nor implied in any of the gospel accounts.  However, to say the Levitical priesthood did not become obsolete at the institution of the new priesthood after the order of Melchisedec would do injustice to the Word in Hebrews 7:12 which states, “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” (NKJV).

Jesus did institute at that supper a massive paradigm shift in understanding the original literal and perceived prophetic meaning of Passover itself.  But it was not new with Jesus. Isaiah foresaw the Messiah as a lamb led to the slaughter (Isa.53:7).  John the Baptist was also a forerunner of the concept when he pointed out Jesus as "the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).  Paul confirmed the intention of the ceremony from its beginning in stating, "Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." (1 Cor.5:7). These concepts of Passover Jesus made new, in the time during which the eyes of the disciples were still veiled, by declaring the emblems as tokens or reminders of His body and blood (Matt.26:26-28, despite the numerous times the cross and His imminent death were plainly foretold to then). Passover no longer, (and never was intended to be, just a reminder of the past event of being freed from Egypt, but rather a promise fulfilled in the Messiah; the promise of freedom from the bondage of sin, previously represented symbolically as Egypt.

Furthermore, with this understanding of the Passover, with Yeshua as both the sacrifice and the Priest ministrating the blood of His better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:1-28), that Last Supper, if it had anything to do with priesthood, it was His and not likely that of the Apostles or of the New Testament church. Of course, this too is only implied and not directly stated in the gospels or in 1 Cor.11:22-32 which sheds added light on the topic.

In the end Deut.4:2 and 13:1 may be similar to Rev.22:18-19, which, while many try to apply to the entire Bible to cap off the canon, either with the Pentateuch or after Revelation, it is more likely applicable only to the words of the individual books themselves. Especially if most scholars are correct in placing the gospel of John chronologically after Revelation.

But I speak to you as if you had no knowledge of these things. I apologize to all, but especially to you, Brother Trimm, for I believe that I have figured out that surely your proposed question was a didactic one to draw us out into further discussion and to make us see how easily we could be deceived by looking only to the letter of the law and not to its spirit. (Rom.7:6; 2 Cor.3:6). I am new to this forum and did not know to look for your sense of humor or to expect this style of teaching.  I fell for it; I have been drawn out by your amiable teaching style.

LOL, you got me, but I think I’ve finally caught on

James Trimm said:

If Yeshua had "ordained" a "new priesthood" "during the last supper" he would have added to the Torah and the Torah (Deut. 13) would thus require us to reject him as a false prophet.

 

You shall not add to the word which I command you,
neither shall you diminish a thing from it,
that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:2)

Whatever thing I command you, observe to do it:
you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
(Deuteronomy 13:1(12:32))

 

As already pointed out by others in this forum, there were both promises of further information from a Prophet like unto Moses (the Messiah) and by other lesser prophets. If what you propose were true, thatno changes at all could ever be made to any biblical statement, or to its understanding, we would be in trouble. 

Can new information be added in the form of expansion of mankind's understanding of what was already written? Can that which is later given under inspiration include that which was not previously revealed? What if supposedly new ideas are found only in embryo form in the Pentateuch? Can these ideas not be expanded upon even if that expansion enlarges or even changes our understanding of the text as we originally perceived it?

The answer should be, “of course we can!” If our understanding is limited only to literal translations, to the letter of the law, then why are we even looking for a deeper or better understanding of the Word in this forum?

If we are limited to the literal translation of Deut.13:1 (12:32) as you quoted it, rather than by a comparative, full Scripture definition and explanation of the passage, then we may have an improper hermeneutic. Taken too rigidly Deut.13:1 would eliminate this forum and its open discussions. The Talmud, all of the later prophets after Moses, wisdom literature, and even portions of the Psalms, and portions of the accounts of history within the current cannon would become unacceptable additions for many of them build on the legal, prophetic, and theological foundations of their predecessors both after and within the writings of Moses.

I propose that the law is UNCHANGEABLE as is confirmed by Old and New Testaments alike (Matt.5:18). Even the Messiah's "new commandment" was merely an expansion on an old principle, but in so restating and clarifying it, it became as something new to its hearers and later readers (John 13:34).  In the same way, John, while adding nothing new (1 John 2:7) "no new commandment," at the same time gave a "new commandment" (1 John 2:8-9) clarifying the intent of the old.

Sometimes God’s instructions are conditional, sometimes they are for a limited place or time and therefore temporary. The rules do not change, yet not all rule applications are universal; circumstances do change and that changes the application. Many laws do not apply to all people in all situations and times. On rare occasions the laws themselves change as humanity, or at least God’s people, mature and progress; or else regress.

Such changes are significant in terms of fallen mankind, but they do not change God, His plan, His purpose, His character, or His desire to redeem and save us; ultimately to restore us fully. But outwardly, there are some laws that require a change of perspective and perception to actually understand them. These laws the Messiah came to clarify. If mankind would accept His authority and reasoning they would accept the spirit rather than the letter.  Just consider the many examples in Matthew 5:21-6:4 alone. These redefine murder in terms of anger and hash words, adultery as a lustful look, most types of divorce as sin (although originally allowed my Moses due to the hardness of men’s hearts—Matt.19:8), counsel not to swear falsely is changed to better not to swear at all, turning the exacting harshest penalties legally allowed into forgiveness even and especially towards one’s enemies, and charity towards all without pride or self-recognition demanded or desired.  Now these do not even include the rabbinic thoughts on things like riches that He turned upside down in Luke 16:19-31; 18:22-27, or the twists He put on Hillel, as you yourself point out, like making our relationships proactive by changing “Don’t do to others what you would not want them to do to you” into “Do unto others what you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31). No, the previous examples were changes to the letter of the Pentateuch, bringing them into the Spirit (Rom.7:6; 2 Cor.3:6). These were changes, even at the time Jesus gave them, which were shocking changes that changed nothing (concerning God) and everything (about how we should respond to Him and each other).  

Could not the revealing of, rather than an institution of, a new order of priesthood be an expansion of what was meant by a 'kingdom of priests" (Exo.19:6) combined with the priesthood which is "after the order of Melchisedec” (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 20, 21) which, unlike that of Aaron / Levi, would "be forever" or "without end" (Heb. 7:21)(Without detracting from the place of those of that tribe in Heaven or in the New Earth)?  

Explanation or expansion does CHANGE things (details), but it doesn’t change the plan. It reveals the original plan. It can change our perception and conception of its meaning and intent. Such exploration can help diligent searchers for truth to be more Christ-like as they are led by the Holy Spirit.

-----------

I believe it was 153 plus my response to 153 that originally recognized a possible parallel of Judas at the Lord’s Supper with the exclusion of the idolatrous tribe of Dan from the 144,000 in Rev.7. Although I neither endorsed nor repudiated the idea.  However, I did not recall that this supposed change of priesthood was a part of that discussion. In searching I did find that it was.

However, if a new priesthood was, at that time, conferred upon the twelve, or even put on an order of persons based on any later apostleship as a spiritually gifted ministry, which I am not saying it was, it would not have been out of order on the basis of your argument against change.  That is, it would not be impossible on the basis of your argument that to have done so would be in violation of the prohibition concerning change. Change is fine as long as that change is a conceptual change or paradigm shift hidden perhaps, but contained within the original content of all that the Scripture says on that topic. Thus it is not an intrinsic change, but rather a shift in understanding of a previous conception of the order of things as ordained by God. Like prophecy, certain of God’s laws may come with or without expressed limiting conditions. 

The best argument against the conferral of priesthood at the Last Supper is that it is neither expressed nor implied in any of the gospel accounts.  However, to say the Levitical priesthood did not become obsolete at the institution of the new priesthood after the order of Melchisedec would do injustice to the Word in Hebrews 7:12 which states, “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” (NKJV).

Jesus did institute at that supper a massive paradigm shift in understanding the original literal and perceived prophetic meaning of Passover itself.  But it was not new with Jesus. Isaiah foresaw the Messiah as a lamb led to the slaughter (Isa.53:7).  John the Baptist was also a forerunner of the concept when he pointed out Jesus as "the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).  Paul confirmed the intention of the ceremony from its beginning in stating, "Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." (1 Cor.5:7). These concepts of Passover Jesus made new, in the time during which the eyes of the disciples were still veiled, by declaring the emblems as tokens or reminders of His body and blood (Matt.26:26-28, despite the numerous times the cross and His imminent death were plainly foretold to then). Passover no longer, (and never was intended to be, just a reminder of the past event of being freed from Egypt, but rather a promise fulfilled in the Messiah; the promise of freedom from the bondage of sin, previously represented symbolically as Egypt.

Furthermore, with this understanding of the Passover, with Yeshua as both the sacrifice and the Priest ministrating the blood of His better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:1-28), that Last Supper, if it had anything to do with priesthood, it was His and not likely that of the Apostles or of the New Testament church. Of course, this too is only implied and not directly stated in the gospels or in 1 Cor.11:22-32 which sheds added light on the topic.

In the end Deut.4:2 and 13:1 may be similar to Rev.22:18-19, which, while many try to apply to the entire Bible to cap off the canon, either with the Pentateuch or after Revelation, it is more likely applicable only to the words of the individual books themselves. Especially if most scholars are correct in placing the gospel of John chronologically after Revelation.

But I speak to you as if you had no knowledge of these things. I apologize to all, but especially to you, Brother Trimm, for I believe that I have figured out that surely your proposed question was a didactic one to draw us out into further discussion and to make us see how easily we could be deceived by looking only to the letter of the law and not to its spirit. (Rom.7:6; 2 Cor.3:6). I am new to this forum and did not know to look for your sense of humor or to expect this style of teaching.  I fell for it; I have been drawn out by your amiable teaching style.

LOL, you got me, but I think I’ve finally caught on. 

Sholom and thanks for your detailed response and want to first say that after writing a friend about the tribe of Dan and their absence in Revelation, what he said was that in 1st or 2nd Chronicles there is a point where as a tribe Dan is no longer mentione, the place called Dan is but the tribe isn't. And the Rabbis have in their commentaries asked and made detailed writings on the tribe of Dan being missing asking was it that they were absorbed into the other tribes or did they die out, like what almost happened with Benyamin where the other tribes had to send brides for the men so the tribe would not die out and this may have been what happened to Dan, but in either case it didn't happen in the 2nd exile but already happened by the time of or in the 1st exile. In terms of your question or statement about adding to or taking away from the Torah and Y'SHUA's Priesthood, we see that in actuality MASHIYACH reinstated the original priesthood of the 1st born, that as you spoken of Shemos 19:6 the Kingdom of Priests which was to be the first bborn sons from each of the 12 tribes but with the sin of the golden calf was lost to all and reduced to the tribe of Levi because of their response where they killed about 3000, and within that tribe for Moshe's intercession on behalf of his brother Aharon as is stated in Devarim, for YHVH to forgive him, the family of Aharon retained the High priesthood. But first before we get into this "can of worms" this was brought to my mind by the Ruach and am going to be sketchy about it, remember first before Aharon served in his full capacity as High Priest Moshe Rabbeinu serve in a capacity like High Priest, making the sacrifices, making intercession pouring the anointing oil, making on behalf of Israel the Covenant, the ordinations of Aharon and the priesthood, of the 70 and so on he was acting as Priest before Aharon was ready and along side Aharon, yes he was of Levi but as he prophesied in Devarim 18 that a Prophet like him was going to be raised up from among of "your brethren" and like Moshe ordained the priesthood and sanhedrin so did Y'SHUA but not to replace Levi...but both as a restoration of the firstborn priesthood...and not firstborn in the classic sense but as He, His talmidim latter write about themselves/us as the First Fruits..He the First Born Among Many Brethren and the FirstFruit of the Resurection, a Priesthood of His brethren...being first born in an allegorical sensechosen status like Yaakov over Esav, Ephraim over Manashah, David over 7 brothers...and first fruit like Him as the first born had to be redeemed by paying the Priesthood and their priesthood tranferred by laying their hands on Levi MASHIYACH by through Yehudah laying his hands on Him betraying Him with a kiss, for the Talmidim,the Levitical Priesthood through MASHIYACH being struck by KhananYah through one of His officers then all the priesthood and Sanhedrin striking Him as they said "prophecy who struck you" transfered (then Edom and the other relatives through Herod and the rest of the world through Rome) their very lives to Him for Him to pay for their and all the worlds debt of sin He took on not just their/our sin but on our very lives so He could die in their and our stead, but in taking on this through transference or impartation they also layed on Him in doing so even their Priesthood so He could intercede for them, as when the firstborn first layed their hands on the Levites after the sin of the golden calf and the Tabernacle was completed and then census being taken the redemption of the first born took place with them paying the priesthood then after immersion the tribes firstborn laid hands on them transferring their priesthood that was given to them in Shemos 19:6, right before the golden calf, what was reduced to Levi and Aharon was restored by this to the entire Nation but to an allegorical first born in the order of the First Born among many brethren who is First Born and First Fruit...
First Born First Fruit but also remember the Levitical priesthood was inaugurated at the Tabernacle not at the Temple, the Tabernacle was made after the model of the One in Heaven where Y'SHUA is High Priest forever after the order of MelchiTzadek and the prefigure in Bereishis served as High Priest at the Time of Avraham Avinu who submitted to him and before earth's Temple (or Levitical priesthood) existed and so served when no Hebrew Temple existed and thus served here on earth before the Temple in Heaven, as we serve our High Priest whose is in this Temple in Heaven but I must point out this is a priesthood not in replacement of Levi or Aharon but in the greater Temple of Heaven and in MASHIYACH's return and the Temple rebuilt and sacrifes restored so will the Levitical Priesthood be restored. The priesthood we serve in is one of intercession for Israel and the whole world as was done at Succos by the earthly Temple priesthood is done by us every day but not the 70 bulls but the Sacrifice by the Lamb of G-D. prophesied by Avraham " Father Hineini my son, here is the wood and the fire but where is the lamb for the offering?YHVH will provide the Lamb for the offering my son...Henei the Lamb of EL...He is Sacrifice and Priest and we see this also take place in Shemos 34 after the sin of the golden calf and Levis response to Moshe, when he asks first for ELOHIM to show him His Glory and HE in tghis shows His 13 Attributes while He declares them to Moshe in that says He will not forgive sins entirely but then Moshe gets on his face and asks for Him to forgive Israelis sin and go with them and Y'SHUA is then speaking and promises the ReNewed Covenant which is where in Hebrews the death of the one making the Testament comes into play and then as Rabbi James Trimm points out is later foreshadowed by Jonathan giving His garments to David (And with the transference/impartation by the Priests and Sanhedrin this exchange is played out we could also look to it with the Purple and Scarlet robes being placed on Him) so long story short Dans disappearance happens before the first exile according to Chronicles and the Rabbinate writings and there was a transfer of the priesthood but not a replacement instrad a restoration as when because of the abuse of divorce ("because of the hardness of your hearts Moshe allowed this but from the Bereishis this wasn't so for it is written and the 2 shall become one flesh....He restored also the only legitimate reason for divorce," in terms of priesthood from Aviv/Nisan it wasn't like this but because of the hardness of your hearts the Levites are the priesthood for it is written you are a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy nation vut not a preplacing in an earthly Temple sense but before the Temple in Heaven as when the Temple is rebuilt, as when Rav Shaul and the 4 with him when to fulfill their vows at the Temple in Acts, the Levitical priesthood will be the Temple priests again

Thank you, Malkiel Leib Strokovsky for your two posts of explanation. What you say makes sense in all but one aspect. That aspect is not clear because I can see we come from different eschatological perspectives. I am not sure I understand your perspective and thus I fail to grasp the conclusion.

 

I will spare you the details and most Scripture references at this time, but here is the basic outline:

In my theological perspective the return of Y'SHUA occurs before the millennium. The millennium takes place in Heaven where the righteous are taken. While the righteous in Messiah are given immortality, the wicked except Satan are slain and their bodies are as stubble on a devastated earth.  Satan has that thousand years with no human to tempt and thus the earth for him becomes an inescapable bottomless pit.  The dead have no conscious awareness now in our day or then as taught in Genesis, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, etc. So Satan is not in charge of hell or death in any form; he has no souls to torture or coddle. Only Y'SHUA holds the metaphorical keys, only YHWH alone is immortal and He has through Y'SHUA extended the gift of everlasting life to the elect.

At the end of the millennium the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, begins its descent towards a ruined earth devoid of human life. At that time the second resurrection, that of the wicked unto damnation takes place.  They are deceived and recruited by Satan to try to conquer and capture the descending New Jerusalem to take it as their capitol.  However, before the attack can take place Y'SHUA raises His hand and the wicked stop in their tracks. Their lives flash before them and they realize several things: They were wrong, they are wicked indeed, the joys of Heaven would hold no interest for them for it is holy, and God is just in condemning sin and unrepentant sinners, which they are. They all know that God is loving, true, and just; they are unworthy and unable to stand in His presence. In that moment every knee bows and every tongue, even those of Satan and his devils, confesses that YHWH is LORD.  In His mercy YHWH reveals Himself to them in all His Glory. The Righteous rejoice, but this strange act mercifully obliterates the wicked. Some may take a little while longer to perish, but not long relatively.  Soon even Satan is as if he never existed. This is the second death from which none can ever return except Y’SHUA who endured for a time without a connection with the Godhead. He did this in our place. The earth melts with fervent heat, but then from the molten abyss the Godhead again makes the new heavens and new earth upon which the New Jerusalem finally descends onto the geographic former site of the old Jerusalem. There is no need of a temple there, for God and His Christ are the Temple thereof. 

With sin and sinners gone and evil vanquished there is no more need of sacrifice. During the anti-typical Day of Atonement foretold in Daniel 8:14 and concluded just prior to the Second Coming, even the intercession of Y'SHUA as High Priest ceased as he makes the clarion call of the end of that day. The call declares all that are holy are to remain holy and all that are filthy, unholy, unclean are to remain so as the result of not having fulfilled the requirements of making all right before the close of probation at the end of the Day of Atonement. Thus now, a little more than a thousand years later, there is no need for sacrifice or of a Levitical priesthood as it existed from Moses through to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

 

In my understanding of the last day events there is never a human rebuilding of a temple on earth again, not in the new earth, nor built at any time before the Second Advent.  Why? Because the real temple in heaven is active until just a short time, perhaps a few days or hours, before earth lays in shambles. And in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, YHWH is all the temple any will ever need ever again forever.

 

By now I think you can see my dilemma. It is with the rebuilding of the earthly temple and the supposed need for any restoration of any form of earthly priesthood as we once knew it.  In Heaven relocated to the New Earth, priests may minister to God in the sacrifice of praise, but they do not need to intercede for others or slay animals. All are priests and kings there, but not in the same way as these function in a fallen world. Things are different in a perfect world.

 

So, what is your worldview and eschatology?  How do the last days unfold in your understanding of the Scriptures?  And where is the need for a Levitical priesthood, complete with a system of animal sacrifices, in a world where there is no longer death?  Where there is no death or dying and even the lion and ox, wolf and lamb are friends? Or do you see this as necessary before the Second Advent because something apparently has gone horribly wrong in heaven?

 

Oh, by the way, in my understanding of Scripture, there is no secret coming, no "rapture" as modern dispensationalists term it.  There is a tribulation, but we all endure it and then the end comes; Y'SHUA returns in Glory for His own. Every eye shall see, every ear will hear, and the formerly blind or deaf are no exception, the trumpet sounds and there is nothing hidden or secret about this world wide event.  There is a temporary special resurrection for those who pierced Him so that they may get a preview before getting a second first death.  But that is it, there is no time or place for rebuilding of an earthly Jerusalem temple and priesthood.  

 

Obviously you have a different perspective. I would love to see your take on this.  With the temple in heaven functioning, any earthly one other than later the one in the New Jerusalem, must certainly be a false one. Is it the synagogue of Satan perhaps?

Oh, one more thing. I see your point that the temple continued to function for about 35 years of added grace after the stoning of Stephen and the official national rejection of Y’SHUA.  Y’SHUA had already been in Heaven nearly three and a half years before that.  So is there a conflict with having two active sanctuary services (on earth and in Heaven) during those 38.5 years?  No.  All the required types except Yom Teru'ah (Trumpets/New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and Sukkot (Tabernacles) had been fulfilled and these last three would not become active until near the end of the 2300 days proclaimed in Daniel 8:14, the starting date for which is the prophecies of Daniel 9, the starting point is in 9:25. The prophecies of the other types except Shavuot (Pentecost or Feast of Weeks) were fulfilled in the death, burial, and resurrection. The sending of the Spirit, the giving of new life and power to the Church, was a few days after the Ascension and fulfilled His promise to send the Holy Spirit to them.

 Upon the sacrificial death of Christ our Passover, the temple vail/curtain was torn from top to bottom, a symbol of the end of the earthly sacrificial system. Josephus says the actual temple sacrificial Passover lamb escaped during the accompanying earthquake. Thus, Y’SHUA was the Lamb of God, the only Passover lamb officially slain that year. It took the early Christians, steeped in Jewish heritage, time to figure that out along with its implications.  Paul, ever the accomodationalist, being all things to all men if by any means he might save some, although fighting hard line Judaizers, was also eager to appease his brethren whenever it suited him to do so. Therefore the point of your argument favoring his support of the temple’s services and functions is thereby somewhat weakened. Though in all real ways the temple services, although active, were in reality meaningless to Heaven. Although familiar and comforting to some Jewish Christians, to the unconverted Jews, they were a false hope and distraction from the now active heavenly reality.

Why would any wish to create a counterfeit system on earth again? Only Satan would as I see it.  Only he would want to misdirect people’s minds from the current and ongoing longest running Day of Atonement in history. Maybe they will delay in ignorance until it closes and it catches them unawares.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 


















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2017   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service