Sukkot, Temporary Dwellings In The Eternal Land – Yoel Halevi
Then Yehovah spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the Feast of Sukkot for seven days to Yehovah. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work on it. – Leviticus 23:33-35
Support Truth2U with a monthly donation or one time gift. Thank you for listening!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Do the words of the Messiah not matter?
John 5 24“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
39You diligently studyc the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
And is the Apostle John a liar?
1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
Thank you Abney. I assume you are responding on behalf of Andre to supply the specific passage he was referring to when he said “the Torah is quite clear that without the shedding of blood there is no redemption.”
Firstly let me say that both Yoel & I believe the words of our Father which Moses wrote in Leviticus 17:11, however, this verse does not answer the question. Yes the blood of a sacrifice upon the altar is given to make an atonement but is it the only means by which one may make an atonement? Is there really no atonement without the shedding of blood?
May I suggest some verses that clearly disprove Andre’s claim:
Exodus 30:15-16 The half shekel money offering atoned for the souls of the Children of Israel.
Leviticus 16:21-22 The Scapegoat which bore all the iniquities of Israel was sent away alive into the wilderness.
Numbers 16:46-47 Aaron’s incense atoned for the people, and stayed the plague
Moreover, the Tanakh tells us that prayer and sincere words of repentance are an acceptable substitute for the shedding of blood. Hosea 14:1-2, “Return, O Israel, unto the YHVH your God; for thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity. Take with you words, and return unto the YHVH; say unto Him: ‘Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.”
Well I thought I answered plainly that what God requires can’t be fulfilled in it’s entirety without a temple… including the last few scriptures you quoted to Abney. The stone that the builders rejected is the chief cornerstone – and it is certainly God’s doing (the Psalmist wasn’t speaking about himself or the actual building).
As far as the verses… well the entirety of Leviticus is a good start… Especially all the feasts…
You still didn’t answer my question though as to what do think Yeshua’s role was and who he is to the people of Israel (and the Gentiles).
Andre, obviously all of Yah’s Torah cannot be fulfilled in it’s entirety without the temple, but that’s not the question. The question is: Is there really no atonement without the shedding of blood? Clearly there can be. But now we ask can there be atonement without the temple. Again, Hosea 14:1-2 says there can be. Proverbs 16:6, “By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated; and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”
Jono – Yah’s Torah establishes the feasts of the Lord to show the people of God the Way of His Salvation and to remind them of His past salvation. All those feasts involve the shedding of blood. As Hosea – you have to remain in context – of course Yah stated many times He never wanted to have to have sacrifices… but that is the established way to bring reconciliation after repentance. As also in Proverbs which you referenced…. a man who repents certainly removes evil – but is still was ordered to bring sacrifice… God established the tabernacle and temple for a reason. The holiest man in Israel was the high priest and He still had to offer for himself before he could carry on with the rest of the ceremony. There is no getting around it.
You still don’t say who you think Yeshua is…
I have just newly arrived at this website. In reading a few of the comments, I would like to say a couple of things, then I will remain silent. First of all, as in most disagreements, both parties are right and wrong. I agree that there was, in the Tanakh, more than one way of “atonement”. However, those “atonements” were temporal and temporary, and the blood atonement of Messiah Yeshua is permanent and eternal.
Now, I will listen to whatever else is said, because as a gentile who has been grafted into the root and fatness of the good, cultivated Olive Tree of redeemed, believing remnant “Israel”, there is a lot I can learn, because, Rav Sha’ul said, “what advantage has the “Jew”, then? Much, in every way, because to them have been given the oracles of YHVH”. (the commandments, statutes & ordinances)
Blessings and Shalom to all,
Jennifer
Jennifer, you wrote that the methods of atonement contained in the Tanakh “were temporal and temporary, and the blood atonement of Messiah Yeshua is permanent and eternal.”
Exodus 30:10 – “And Aharon shall make atonement upon its horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement – once a year he makes atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most set-apart to יהוה.”
Leviticus 16:34 – “And this shall be for you a law forever, to make atonement for the children of Yisra’ĕl, for all their sins, once a year.” And he did as יהוה commanded Mosheh.”
Moreover, Hosea 14:1-2 is a prophesy yet to take place.
2 Samuel 12:13 – “David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.”
David’s sin had already been “put away” by Yah without the shedding of blood.
Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
So we see the lamb was slain from the foundations and there is no atonement except in his blood. All other “atonements” are types and shadows.
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Steven, it is interesting that you quote Hebrews 10:4 but not Hebrews 10:5-7, which goes on to say… “Therefore, coming into the world, He says, “Slaughtering and meal offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and offerings for sin You did not delight. Then I said, ‘See, I come – in the roll of the book it has been written concerning Me – to do Your desire, O Elohim.”
Of course, we know that the writer of Hebrews misquotes Psalms 40:6-8, “Sacrifice and meal-offering Thou hast no delight in; mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required. Then said I: ‘Lo, I am come with the roll of a book which is prescribed for me; I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is in my inmost parts.”
Interesting indeed 😉
Jono, what do you think that scripture means and is teaching?
Steven, I’m glad you asked.
1 Samuel 15:22 – “And Samuel said: ‘Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
Let me quote the study notes on Psalm 40:6 from my Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible, “The Lord takes pleasure in those who obediently come to Him with praise on their lips (1 Samuel 15:22-23). My ears you have opened: The Lord not only gives us ears to hear His word, but also grants us understanding so that we can truly obey Him.”
In verses 7&8 David says “behold I come” and thus presents his own life to Yah with the desire to obey the Torah prescribed for him in the scroll.
Once again we are reminded of Hosea 14:1-2 “Return, O Israel, unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity. Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: ‘Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.”
I’m ok with that, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and Yah will not despise a broken and contrite spirit and he says “I create the fruit of the lips”.
But are you saying that this fruit of the lips can be accepted in place of the sacrifice of Yeshua for our atonement?
The original question was “Yes the blood of a sacrifice upon the altar is given to make an atonement but is it the only means by which one may make an atonement? Is there really no atonement without the shedding of blood?”
Clearly that question has been answered in my previous comments on this thread.
Steven, let me ask you a question, is not the fulfillment of the prophecy in Hosea 14:1-2 yet to happen?
In any case, Hosea 14:2 says Israel take with them words, returning to Yehovah, and render for bulls, not Yeshua, the offering of their lips.
Jono, you are asking “did they return as commanded” and I would answer no, Israel refused. Not having returned of course, they could not have fulfilled any of the other items listed here either for those would be based on an obedience to return to Yah.
Amos 4:6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: YET HAVE YE NOT RETURNED UNTO ME, saith the LORD.
Amos 4:8 So two or three cities wandered unto one city, to drink water; but they were not satisfied: YET HAVE YE NOT RETURNED UNTO ME, saith the LORD.
Amos 4:9 I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: YET HAVE YE NOT RETURNED UNTO ME, saith the LORD.
Amos 4:10 I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: YET HAVE YE NOT RETURNED UNTO ME, saith the LORD.
Amos 4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: YET HAVE YE NOT RETURNED UNTO ME, saith the LORD.
Yeshua said they have no atonement, which is what is meant by “your sins remain with you”, they were not taken away. John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore YOUR SIN REMAINETH.
Concerning “the words”:
Hosea 14 says “Take with you words, and turn to the LORD” This is exactly what John the Baptist commanded when he said “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance” and these are the “words”, the fruit of the lips we are to bring when we return. He said “who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Why did he say that? Because they were coming to him, a sign of the return that was commanded is to BE THE PEOPLE PREPARED to receive the Messiah. But they were not of a repentant (circumcised) heart and were unable to “bring the words” as commanded of in Hosea 14.
But Yeshua after his rejection to gather them together made a prophecy. He said that Jerusalem would not see him again until THEY SAY THE WORDS and he tells you what “the words” actually are, the fruit of the lips worthy of repentance: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”.
Shalom
So, when Yeshua says we will not see him again until we “bring the words” what he is saying to Israel is: You must return to me FIRST, then will I return unto you. The return is accomplished by the spirit and power of Elijah who must restore all things first.
“Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
How does Israel return as commanded in Hosea and how does Elijah know they are returning? They go to him in the wilderness speaking “the words”, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” which is equivalent to obedience to the commandment “bring forth works worthy of repentance”. He prepares the way before Yeshua. He makes them able to speak out of the abundance of the heart “the words”.
“Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.”
Steven, I’m not asking did Israel return but rather has it yet happened? We know Israel will because it is prophesied, and when we do return we shall do so with our ears opened to Torah and will render as bulls the offering of our lips.
This is in direct contrast to the nations in Micah 7:16. Verses 14-20 read, “Tend Thy people with Thy staff, the flock of Thy heritage, that dwell solitarily, as a forest in the midst of the fruitful field; let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. ‘As in the days of thy coming forth out of the land of Egypt will I show unto him marvellous things.’ The nations shall see and be put to shame for all their might; they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf. They shall lick the dust like a serpent; like crawling things of the earth they shall come trembling out of their close places; they shall come with fear unto the LORD our God, and shall be afraid because of Thee. Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy. He will again have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.”
Jono, I don’t object to any part that you say except “not Yeshua”.
Shalom
Steven, when did I say “not Yeshua”? I quoted Hosea 14:2, not my words.
Jono, here is your comment from above, I just copy paste it here: You wrote
“In any case, Hosea 14:2 says Israel take with them words, returning to Yehovah, and render for bulls, not Yeshua, the offering of their lips.”
Precisely my point. You asked me “But are you saying that this fruit of the lips can be accepted in place of the sacrifice of Yeshua for our atonement?” and I responded that “Hosea 14:2 says Israel take with them words, returning to Yehovah, and render for bulls, not Yeshua, the offering of their lips.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear? What I am pointing out is that the text says that Israel will render for bulls the offering of their lips. This means that the offering of Israel’s lips is accepted in place of the sacrifice of bulls. When I wrote “not Yeshua” I was merely emphasizing that the text does NOT say that Israel will render for Yeshua the offering of their lips, and I stressed the point that Yeshua is not in the text because of the question you asked me. Again, I didn’t write Hosea, it is not my words. I hope you see that now, and surely you agree?
I agree that Yeshua is not mentioned by name in this verse Hosea 14:1-2. But to whom does Israel return to? Who is the “him” in this verse? It is Yeshua for he is YHVH. The Father and Son are Echad. The Lord our God is one.
Yeshua said “how is it you ask me to show you the Father? Do you not know that if you see me you see the Father?” No man can obey the commandment to return to the Father except by Yeshua for that is the ordination.
John 6:45 Yeshua taught about the return:
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
John 14:6 Yeshua taught more about the return:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
It is impossible to fulfill the scripture of Hosea 14 to return to the Father except by Yeshua. The return will happen, in that you are correct. But if anyone says that they can return by any way but Yeshua, I would disagree.
Shalom
Here is the Scriptures 98 translation of Hosea 14:1-2 to help you, “O Yisra’ĕl, return to יהוה your Elohim, for you have stumbled by your crookedness. Take words with you, and return to יהוה. Say to Him, “Take away all crookedness, and accept what is good, and we render the bulls of our lips
Once again there is no mention of Yeshua in the text and clearly Israel return to Yehovah.
Jono, So you are saying that Yeshua is not Yehovah?
Again Steven, I’m not saying anything, Hosea says that Israel will return to Yehovah. It’s not my opinion, it is written.
“Once again there is no mention of Yeshua in the text”
Before Yeshua came into the world as the Messiah men read passages in the Tanakh without understanding of who that person was. Since we now know who that person is, believers in Yeshua as Messiah read these same passages with understanding. Having this understanding we are able to teach “it is Yeshua who is mentioned in the text”.
For instance when we read “for unto us a child is born and a son I given”, prior to his birth this passage was read without understanding. After his birth, this witness of the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, John’s declaration “behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”, the witness of his miracles (believe the works), Yeshua’s own teaching of who he is, as well as his death burial and resurrection, we are able to read this passage with understanding.
So what am I saying? I am saying that the passage DOES mention Yeshua in the text if you have the knowledge of Yeshua as Messiah. Those who reject the Gospels will of course remain BLIND to the text for they do not know the passage speaks of one specific individual who is testified of by the Father, the Son, The Holy Spirit, the Apostles and the Assembly.
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
Steven, I think you have managed to capture two thousand years of Christian ignorance and arrogance in just a few sentences.
Let’s take your example of Isaiah 9:6-7. It is not a passage that has had Jews scratching their heads for the last two and a half thousand years. It is commonly and convincingly understood that this passage is in reference to the messiah, Hezekiah. This is clearly detailed in the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 94.
So to say that Jews are “BLIND” because they refuse to take part in the Christian revisionism of their sacred Scriptures when they already know what the text is about, is moronic in the extreme.
You cannot define the dictionary via the novel, nor can you interpret the Tanakh via the New Testament. Rather, the NT must be held accountable to the Tanakh devoid of Christian revisionism.
Jono, Of course one CAN interpret the Tanakh via the New Testament; it is YHVH by his Son and by his Spirit who taught us to interpret the Tanakh from his words now recorded in the New Testament. Without these scriptures it is impossible to understand the Tanakh.
Yeshua did not get these words put in his mouth by a man; he did not get them from Moses. John 3:34 For HE WHOM GOD HATH SENT SPEAKETH THE WORDS OF GOD: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”
John 12:49 “For I have not spoken of myself; BUT THE FATHER WHICH SENT ME, HE GAVE ME A COMMANDMENT, WHAT I SHOULD SAY, AND WHAT I SHOULD SPEAK.”
Did Christians make revision of the sacred text by interpreting them via the words of Messiah? It was YHVH who sent his prophet as he said he would in Duet 18 to speak his words and by his Spirit sent down from above that we are led into all truth. These sacred text are those that speak of Yeshua. Yeshua made many teachings inserting himself into the sacred text called Tanakh for he said “they are those which speak of me”. When ever the Tanakh mentions the Messiah we know it is speaking of Yeshua.
If men know all truth because they have “sacred scriptures”, they don’t need his Spirit to guide them into it. If the scriptures were perfect they would not need fulfillment. If we would listen to Moses and the Prophets we would not need to “hear” another.
Jennifer – there is a difference between personal and national atonement.
Jono – the scriptures you quoted stated that the Day of Atonement was a perpetual statute to be done once a year…. and that brings back to my original point. There has been no earthly facilitation of that for the past 1941 years… Who is the “priest forever” after the order of the King of Righteousness spoken of in Psalm 110?? David himself didn’t live forever… Also there is no indication in the scripture (only conjecture from outside sources) that Aaron was a descendant of the King of Salem. How do those things match up?
One other thing… it is wrong to say that blood did not pay for David’s sin… “the sword” remained in his house… and his infant child didn’t live. Life still had to pay for life.
Andre, in the personal atonement of David in 2 Samuel 12:13 the prophet Nathan says to David, “יהוה has put away your sin, you shall not die.” Notice the word “has” which is past tense. The death of David’s child and the sword that remained in his house etc… are consequences of David’s sin, not a means of atonement, which really is obvious because the atonement has already happened.
Ezekiel 18:20-22 “The being who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the crookedness of the father, nor the father bear the crookedness of the son. The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the wrongness of the wrong is upon himself. But the wrong, if he turns from all his sins which he has done, and he shall guard all My laws, and shall do right-ruling and righteousness, he shall certainly live, he shall not die. All the transgressions which he has done shall not be remembered against him – in his righteousness that he has done, he shall live.”
Jono – what you say is correct… but not totally. God told him plainly that evil would come upon him from his own house (his own son later wanted him dethroned) as punishment… likewise that his concubines would be laid with by others in full public view… and it is without question that the child died because God prevented it from living. He said he had to do those things because if he did not punish David – it could be said that God was unfair. 2 Samuel 12:11-14… David’s rightful punishment was death. David the man of God was also a man of war… which prevented him from being able to build the house to God… the place where God proscribed to have the blood atonements slain. (1 Chronicles 22)
I forgot to include this… but you notice that it is not recorded that David goes back into the “house of the Lord (and worshipped)”… until after he mourns the death of the child… Well in most cases some brings a sacrifice to worship in the house of the Lord… So while Nathan pronounced that his sins were put away… David doesn’t stay home to worship… he washes himself and goes to the house of the Lord. I don’t know of any other reason to wash and go “worship” in the house of the Lord except to bring some kind of offering…? If not… he could have done so at home.
Finally – it’s not the actual shedding of blood that makes the atonement… it’s God’s forgiveness and mercy (because He knows the hearts of all men). His chosen method for man to come back into fellowship and teach man the significance of his actions… is to bring a sacrifice. A person with an evil heart could bring sacrifice and we know that God rejects it. God doesn’t “need” us to do anything… it’s just the way He set things up. And for the past 1941 years… the physical house to do it has not existed. I contend and agree with the apostles – that is is because of the death of Yeshua.. which suffices the Father right now.
Andre, Leviticus 5:11-13 says, “But if he is unable to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ĕphah of fine flour as a sin offering. He puts no oil on it, nor does he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his hand filled with it as a remembrance portion, and burn it on the altar according to the offerings made by fire to יהוה. It is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned in any of these, and it shall be forgiven him. And it shall be the priest’s, like a grain offering.”
I’ve never seen flour bleed.
Jono – you are being quite sarcastic…. those flour offerings are for a poor person who could not afford an animal. Yahweh did NOT say that was acceptable to atone for the entire nation. There is a difference between an individual and the nation. I’m pretty sure you know that. It was blood on the doorpost that saved them out of Egypt… and He told the high priest EVERY YEAR to use blood on Yom Kippur… both of theses were for signs were perpetual statutes as you yourself pointed out.
Also note that those sin offerings you referred to were NOT for intentional sins. Pesach and Yom Kippur were unmerited favor of the Father… and He used blood to symbolize it. It’s not my thoughts – those are His thoughts.
Jono – I will go on your level – against my better judgement… but even as I answered about the flour offering for the poor person (which is personal – not “nationally”)… there is still no temple or tabernacle for them to bring that flour offering either… which brings us right back to that original issue. There was only a 70 year exile in Babylon… and God told the people directly through the prophets. I also believe He spoke through his prophets (specifically Daniel) exactly what would happen now this past 2000 or so years. Most choose to reject it…even the ones that are “zealous” for Torah.
Andre, so to conclude (and I think we can)…
1. there is both individual and national atonement in the Tanakh
2. there is atonement without the shedding of blood
Now as to your other question: “Who is the “priest forever” after the order of the King of Righteousness spoken of in Psalm 110?? David himself didn’t live forever… Also there is no indication in the scripture (only conjecture from outside sources) that Aaron was a descendant of the King of Salem. How do those things match up?”
Psalm 110:4 says, “יהוה has sworn and does not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Malkitseḏeq.”
The key to this verse is found in the word rendered in English as “order”. According to Christian theology, this word in the context of Psalm 110:4 is to be understood as a successive, shared or inherited regulation, rank, status, quality, condition, and/or specified class or character. In this specific case a “Priesthood”. In fact, the suffix “hood” is synonymous with the use of the word order in this particular case. Therefore, Christian theology concludes that Psalm 110:4 refers to an eternal “priesthood”, an “order of Melchizedek” in the same way one might refer to an order of catholic monks or nuns, or even knights etc…
The problem is that the Hebrew term translated as “order” coveys no such thing. The word used is דִּבְרָתִי . This word is used in only one other place in the Tanakh, Job 5:8, “Yet I–I inquire for God, And for God I give my word” (YLT) Here we see the identical Hebrew term translated as “my word”, but why? Most modern English translations render this word as “my cause” or “my case”. But note that none of these interpretations are synonymous with the Christian understanding of the word “order” in Psalm 110:4.
The root of this word is דָּבָר which is translated as “word” over 800 times in the Tanakh and the question becomes whose word is דִּבְרָתִי referring to? Psalm 110:4 says, “יהוה has sworn and does not relent” Therefore it is YHVH’s word “of Melchizedek”, or in other words, Yah’s word spoken by Melchizedek. What then is that word? Well Melchizedek’s only words are recorded in Genesis 14:19-20, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” (my emphasis).
What does this have to do with the context of Psalm 110:4? One has to read the whole chapter to see it…
Psalm 110
–A Psalm of David.
1 YHVH said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2 YHVH shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
3 Your people shall be volunteers
In the day of Your power;
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,
You have the dew of Your youth.
4 YHVH has sworn
And will not relent,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
5 YHVH is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries.
7 He shall drink of the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He shall lift up the head.
Amen to Yah’s word spoken of Melchizedek, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.”
Jono – I understand about what that is in the Hebrew… but that is not “Christian” theology. Most “churches” have no idea who Melchizedek even is. David constructed this Psalm by the Spirit of God…. and there is a reason that Melchizedek is mentioned there as opposed to anyone else. David himself was not of the descendants of Aaron… so while God made David’s enemies his footstool… it was ultimately about God making His own enemies His footstool. Was God calling Himself a priest? Are you saying that Melchizedek was not a priest? Just because modern Jewish thought wants to disregard anything that would make it possible for Yeshua to be the Messiah – does not make it true. There are many Jewish believers who understand Hebrew quite well… and yet they’ve come to the conclusion that Yeshua is indeed the promised Messiah… according to the testimony of Yeshua’s life by the apostles’s and reckon it to match up quite well to the Torah and the prophets in their original Hebrew. In fact – all of the original believers were Hebrews themselves… regardless of how demonic principalities skewed Him to be more “gentile-friendly”.
Andre, I hold a degree in Christian theology, when I told you what Christian theology believes regarding the definition of the word translated as “order” in Psalm 110:4 in my previous comment, I wasn’t making it up and it is certainly no secret…I have Christian theological text books that explain exactly what I have stated and it is taught in every Christian Bible college whenever the relevant passages in the book of Hebrews arise.
Yah was calling David a “kohen” forever. The word “kohen” in this verse is solely in reference to David and bears no connection to Melchizedek. A “kohen” is simply “one who is in service”. It is not an either/or, either Aaron or Melchizedek. There are a number of uses of “kohen” in the Tanakh, even just in Genesis, that have nothing to do with either of these choices.
Oh yes – I almost forgot about this one… again Jono – it’s not my thought… Leviticus 17:11 spells it out clearly at the end of all the explanations of many many of the sacrifices.
G’day Andre, I’m just going to copy and paste my replying comment to Abney when she attempted to answer a question I addressed to you earlier in this thread…
Yes – I read where you wrote that before. A few points as to why those are different context than the discussion of what the blood sacrifice was atonement for and how it applied:
1)The half-shekel you cite in Exodus had to with the taking of the census of the people (so that there be no plague) and the money went to the service of the tabernacle – which again – no longer exists.. the tabernacle that was the place to handle the blood sacrifices.
2) The scapegoat was after blood was already offered for the people – for Aaron – and for the holy place itself…
3) Yes it is correct the incense did make atonement… But there was no new commandment given. That was in severe circumstance with a fast moving plague – where there was no time to wait to go find a suitable animal or to go through ritual slaughter. God is merciful. Though again – it’s context. That was not random incense… it was still from the fire of the altar in the tabernacle where sacrifice took place. The further context is that the censer was what told God separated Aaron and his sons from person who would make strange offerings (sacrifices). The people were rebelling against Aaron – so Moses used it as a sign. And again – the tabernacle no longer exists.
4)Hosea was a prophet in the days of the Kings when Israel and Judah were separated… He is saying what all the prophets knew (Jeremiah 7:21-28) – that God never wanted his people to have to offer sacrifice… He preferred them to be in obedience to Torah. The context of Hosea’s prophecy is (see chapter 13 as well as 14) – God has defeated death (which the apostle Saul sighted to the Corinthians) and Israel has returned to the Lord and He has healed ALL their iniquity. That has not happened yet… but when that does happen THEN will the “calves of the lips” suffice… because there will no longer be need for blood. It is my belief that those who believe in the grace of Yeshua’s work by His Father’s hand we already have a foretaste of that…wether an Israelite or a Gentile.
G’day Andre,
Leviticus 5:11-15 says, “‘But if he is unable to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ĕphah of fine flour as a sin offering. He puts no oil on it, nor does he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his hand filled with it as a remembrance portion, and burn it on the altar according to the offerings made by fire to יהוה. It is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned in any of these, and it shall be forgiven him. And it shall be the priest’s, like a grain offering.’”
Good day Jono – Yes our merciful Creator made provision for someone who was too poor to bring an animal…. He did not “cheapen” it for everyone – nor for the national Day of Atonements. Again – as it still stands that flour still had to be offered in the “house of God”… which is not standing. The religious Jews still go to the “western wall” because they know when God says His Name is there forever – He means it.
My argument is that God allowed the Greeks to defile and then the Romans later to destroy the temple for His purpose. He set the stage that the altar would be out of commission for all these centuries…as prophesied by Daniel (9:22-27) in the same way it was prophesied in Jeremiah that a time would come when persons will no longer enquire about the Ark of the Covenant (Jeremiah 3:14-17) – but all who remain of the nations will worship at Jerusalem. I believe the testimony of Luke as given to him by the apostles as it states in Acts chapter 1 – that Yeshua will return in the Name of His Father – to the east of the temple at the Mt. of Olives and restore the kingdom of David… as was prophesied Zechariah 14.
Forgive me if this has already been asked & addressed, but are women prohibited from wearing tzitzits ?
TY !