| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORNING & EVENING OFFERING WORSHIP
NEED FOR MECY AND JUSTICE IN THE MERCY SEAT
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TABERNACLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TEMPLES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OF THE HEBREW CALENDAR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OF TEMPLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
DID NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS HAVE THE ENDOWMENT FARMS 2002?
BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO MORMON TEMPLES
IS THE MORMON INTERVIEW PROCESS BIBLICAL?
WERE TEMPLES AMONG THE ANCIENT MAYA CHRISTIAN?
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM MASONRY AND THE TEMPLE
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO TEMPLES AFTER THE CROSS
NIBLEY MEANING OF THE TEMPLE FARMS 92
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM HISTORY OF LDS TEMPLES 1831 TO 1990
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM TEMPLE DEDICATIONS
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM ADMINISTRATION OF TEMPLES
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM NIBLEY MEANINGS AND FUNCTIONS OF TEMPLES
ENCYCLOPEDIA ON MORMONISM TEMPLES THROUGH THE AGES
NIBLEY DO CHRISTIANS ENVY THE MORMON TEMPLE?
AN AROMA ASCENDING GODWARD
Gen 8:20-21
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man …."
MOSAIC ALTARS COMMANDED
My research indicated altars began changing physically in the Mosaic period.
Deut 12:5-7
"But you shall seek the LORD at the place which the LORD your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come. "There you shall bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the contribution of your hand, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock. "There also you and your households shall eat before the LORD your God, and rejoice in all your undertakings in which the LORD your God has blessed you.
FOUR HORNED ALTAR
Exod 38:2-3
He made its horns on its four corners, its horns being of one piece with it, and he overlaid it with bronze. He made all the utensils of the altar, the pails and the shovels and the basins, the flesh hooks and the firepans; he made all its utensils of bronze.
Lev 4:7
"The priest shall also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense which is before the LORD in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.
SACRIFICE TIED TO THE HORNS
Ps 118:27-29
The LORD is God, and He has given us light; bind the festival sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar. You are my God, and I give thanks to you; you are my God, I extol you.
Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; for His lovingkindness is everlasting.
HORNS OF THE ALTAR & FUGITIVES
Exod 21:14
"If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.
I King 1:50-53
And Adonijah was afraid of Solomon, and he arose, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Now it was told Solomon, saying, "Behold, Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon, for behold, he has taken hold of the horns of the altar, saying, "Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword."' Solomon said, "If he is a worthy man, not one of his hairs will fall to the ground; but if wickedness is found in him, he will die." So King Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and prostrated himself before King Solomon, and Solomon said to him, "Go to your house."
I King 2:28-29
Now the news came to Joab, for Joab had followed Adonijah, although he had not followed Absalom. And Joab fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar.
It was told King Solomon that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD, and behold, he is beside the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, "Go, fall upon him."
ISBE ~ CLINGING TO THE HORNS OF THE ALTAR FOR MERCY
Fugitives seeking asylum might cling to the horns of the altar, as did Adonijah 1 Kin 1:50, which is one proof among many that worshippers had at all times access to the neighborhood of the altar. On certain occasions, as at the consecration of Aaron and his sons Exo 29:12, and a sin offering for one of the people of the land Lev 4:30, the horns were touched with sacrificial blood. [International Standard Bible Encylopaedia]
HORN OF SALVATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Luke 1:69
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant.
Luke picked up this language and used it to describe Christ in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about saving the House of David.
HORN ~ VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY
keras "a horn," is used in the plural, as the symbol of strength, (a) in the apocalyptic visions; (1) on the head of the Lamb as symbolic of Christ, Rev. 5:6; (2) on the heads of beasts as symbolic of national potentates, Rev. 12:3; 13:1,11; 17:3,7, 12,16 (cf. Dan. 7:8; 8:9; Zech. 1:18, etc.); (3) at the corners of the golden altar, Rev. 9:13 (cf. Exod. 30:2; the horns were of one piece with the altar, as in the case of the brazen altar, 27:2, and were emblematic of the efficacy of the ministry connected with it); (b) metaphorically, in the singular, "a horn of salvation," Luke 1:69 (a frequent metaphor in the OT, e. g., Ps. 18:2; cf. 1 Sam. 2:10; Lam. 2:3). [Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words]
IMPROPER TEMPLES CAN BE DANGEROUS
When I studied altars and temples as used in the period of the kings and the prophets I kept seeing language from God which demonstrated how unhappy God was with the majority of worship in Palestine. What was it about that changing worship that introduced this breach in the Palestinian Covenant?
SOLOMON LED WAY INTO DANGEROUS WORSHIP
I Kings 11:1-13
1. Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
2. from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, "You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, {for} they will surely turn your heart away after their gods." Solomon held fast to these in love.
3. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
4. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites.
6. Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done.
7. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.
8. Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9. Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10. and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded.
11. So the LORD said to Solomon, "Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant.
12. "Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of your father David, {but} I will tear it out of the hand of your son.
13. "However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, {but} I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."
Solomon's sin was in mixing worship of other deities along side of the worship of Yahweh. It doesn't take very detail analysis to see the evidence that the heart of God was wounded deeply.
Later we see God removing His people violently from their land in accordance with His Palestinian Covenant in Deuteronomy.
Years later we see a remnant of God's people being allowed to return after they spent the required period of time in Babylon. By Malachi however we see a different sin associated with the sacrificial offering. Malachi says we should not worship expecting to receive God's continued grace and mercy with a sacrifice that looks more like road kill than an unblemished offering specified in the Law.
MALACHI WARNED AGAINST OFFERING BLEMISHED SACRIFICES
Malachi 1:1-9
1. The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2. "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob;
3. but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."
4. Though Edom says, "We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins"; thus says the LORD of hosts, "They may build, but I will tear down; and {men} will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever."
5. Your eyes will see this and you will say, "The LORD be magnified beyond the border of Israel!"
6. "A son honors {his} father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?' says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, "How have we despised Your name?'
7. "{You} are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, "How have we defiled You?' In that you say, "The table of the LORD is to be despised.'
8. "But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?" says the LORD of hosts.
9. "But now will you not entreat God's favor, that He may be gracious to us? With such an offering on your part, will He receive any of you kindly?" says the LORD of hosts.
THE NEW TESTAMENT TEMPLE
As my research moved into the New Testament period I saw on the part of Christ a very high view of the temple in Jerusalem. We see John the Baptist's birth announced in the temple
Luke 1:8-11
Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the {appointed} order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense.
CHRIST TEACHING ABOUT OFFERINGS AT ALTAR
Matt 5:23-24
"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
JESUS CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
Mark 11:15-18
Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, "MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS'? But you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN." The chief priests and the scribes heard this and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.
Every gospel author portrays Christ "cleansing" the temple multiple times. Most of the tension between Christ and the Jewish legal authorities was associated with incidents that took place in the temple. One of Jesus final prophecies predicted correctly the demise of the temple itself in A D. 70.
PREDICTION OF TEMPLE DESTRUCTION
Matt 24:1-3
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen …?"
VEIL OF THE TEMPLE TEARING
Mark 15:38-40
And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.
Many were aware of this peculiar tearing incident. Not many priests believed in Christ from the beginning but we see later on Acts a revival coming among priests [Acts 6:7, cf. Jn 12:42].
TEMPLE CONTROVERSIES IN JESUS DAY
What was it about the temple in Jesus time that created so much controversy? Not many years later we even see riots in some temple enclosures because people believed some non-Jews had wrongly been admitted. What was the cause of this disturbance that lied at the root of the temple experience of that period. Associated with this concept was the "tearing" of the holy curtain that separated the holy place from the holy of holies. We will examine this New Testament event and see if we can understand it in context with the history and development of temples in Palestine.
THE TEMPLE IN THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
As my research shifted to Acts and the apostolic letters I saw the word temple used in a variety of ways that are important to our understanding of temples. We see Luke mentioning the temple often in his history of the first century church he completed in A. D. 63. [just 7 years previous to its destruction]. What is important about the temple in the life of the early church? Did Pentecost occur in an upper room of the temple? Would this evidence the need for ongoing temples as a part of the Christian life?
THE TEMPLE IN APOSTOLIC LETTERS
As I researched the letters chronologically I see the physical temple being used side by side with expressions that identified a mystical temple within the heart of every true believer. I see some authors even speaking of the existence of an altar within verses a mere external altar. Others speak of an new access to a much more real but spiritual altar in heaven that is now accessible. Did these advances in spiritual life afforded by the reality of the New Testament indicate future physical temples were obsolete?
Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
1 Cor 3:17
If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
CHRISTIAN ALTAR UNIQUE FROM WORLD
2 Cor 6:16-18
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; and I will welcome you. "And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me," says the Lord Almighty.
FALSE ALTARS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Acts 17:23
"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
1 Cor 10:20
No but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
TEMPLES IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Since the first scrolls were found in the Judaean desert by a Bedouin shepherd in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been the subject of passionate speculation and controversy. The possibility that the scrolls might challenge many assumptions about ancient Judaism and the origins of Christianity, coupled with the extremely limited access to the scrolls imposed for many years, only fueled fiery debates on their meanings and implications.With all the scrolls—more than 800 documents from eleven caves—now finally available in facsimile editions, and translations proceeding on many fronts, some conclusions can at last be drawn as to their authorship and origins, their implications for Christianity and Judaism, and their link with the ancient site of Qumran. This timely book, written by three noted scholars in the field, draws together all the evidence and presents the first fully illustrated survey of every major manuscript, from the Copper Scroll, the Community Rule, and the Temple Scroll to less well-known scripts such as the Florilegium and New Jerusalem. [Philip R. Davies is Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield. George J. Brooke is Professor of Theology and Religion at the University of Manchester. Phillip R. Callaway is a lecturer and scholar of Dead Sea Scrolls studies.]
http://www.wwnorton.com/thamesandhudson/new/spring02/505111.htm 02-03-03
Temple Scroll (11Q19 and 11Q20)
Nearly all sources I examined from the Old Testament, inter-testament, and New Testament showed the Hebrews were very interested in their temple. Because of this they wrote much about every facet the temples. All of the rules guiding every facet of life among the Levites was carefully preserved. This temple scroll is one of the longest scrolls to be found at Qumran.
ARE MODERN TEMPLES NEEDED TODAY?
This research helped me as I placed this in context with the modern Mormon temple experience.
The Mormon temple experience itself is an interesting study. Its first temple predated the revelation of the "endowment." All Mormon temples constructed after the arrival of the endowment are different in important ways from the earliest LDS temple. As a part of this research I included every major paper, book or chapter that dealt with the Mormon endowment.
Not many outsiders to Mormonism understand this language. This is even more true of many active temple Mormons. The endowment language is deemed so sacred [secret] that it can never be discussed outside of the Mormon temple itself. This means not even informed temple Mormons can purchase a book or take a class to help them understand the endowment.
MOST HOLY "SECRET" ENDOWMENT LANGUAGE
The endowment language itself is considered the most holy of all LDS revelations that Joseph Smith restored. Yet that endowment language has been undergoing great change in the years since it was initiated by Joseph Smith.
ENDOWMENT ROOTED IN BOOK OF ABRAHAM
The source for the Mormon temple endowment language comes from the Book of Abraham papyri. This can be verified by turning to the facsimile section of the Pearl of Great Price and reading the explanations relating to the endowment. This is also verified by modern LDS leaders, educators and apologists. But the Abraham papyri adds a controversial element since the years when the original manuscripts were "re-discovered." Since that year, English translations of the papyri by Joseph Smith have come into serious question. Even Mormon apologists are now having to say Joseph Smith's translation was "non-literal." No non Mormon Egyptologist associates integrity with the current canonized translation found in the Pearl of Great Price. Yet, despite this controversy, many modern Mormons trust their fate and the future fate of their families on Smith's translation ability.
Because so many Christians and Mormons are confused about LDS temples, this research will take Mormon claims very seriously. I include a growing number of the most current and authoritative statements being made by leaders, educators and apologists. Instead of just quoting individual paragraphs or sentences which have so often been called "out of context," I included entire articles or chapters with bibliographies and notes. As Christians and Mormons read these articles they will be able to read for themselves how current influential Mormons are responding.
The first altars seem to have been erected by Noah [Gen 8:20], Abraham [Gen 12:7; 13:4; 22:9], by Isaac [Gen 26:25], and by Jacob [33:20; 35:1,3]. Offerings and sacrifices were a key part of the practice of relationship with God from Cain and Abel, to Noah, to the patriarchs, to Jethro the priest of Median, to the ratification of the Mosaic covenant by sacrifice before the tabernacle was built. They remained central to the ritual systems of the tabernacle and the first and second temples and, therefore, to the Old Testament theology of God's "presence" and his relationship to ancient Israel as his "kingdom of priests."According to Genesis 8:20-22 it was the pleasing aroma of the burning meat that led the Lord to promise that he would never again destroy the earth and mankind as he had done in the flood. The burnt offering was a way of calling on the Lord to pay attention to the needs, requests, and entreaties of his worshipers either independently or in association with the peace offering. It was also a means of expressing worshipful responses to the Lord (Lev 22:18-20) and, along with its accompanying grain offerings, was the staple of the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual festival cycle in the sanctuary (Exod 29:38-45; Num. 28-29 ). [Richard E. Averbeck, Offerings and Sacrifices, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]
MOSAIC ALTARS
The first altar we see being associated with Moses was [Exo 17:15] in connection with the way Yahweh preserved God's people in the wilderness. The next time we see that Hebrew word is later on when God is instructing Moses about legal issues associated with altars [Exod 20:24]. God commanded Moses to build this altar out of earth. God commanded "sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered." In return to Moses obedience God promised "I will come to you and bless you."
ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING
In the tabernacle, two altars were erected. The altar of burnt offering [Exodus 30:28], called also the "brasen altar" [Exodus 39:39] and "the table of the Lord" [Malachi 1:7]. This altar, as erected in the tabernacle, is described in Exodus 27:1-8. It was a hollow square, 5 cubits in length and in breadth, and 3 cubits in height. It was made of wood, and was overlaid with plates of brass. Its corners were ornamented with "horns" [Exodus 29:12; Leviticus 4:18]. In Exodus 27:3 the various utensils appertaining to the altar are enumerated. They were made of brass. [cf. 1 Sam 2:13,14; Lev 16:12; Num 16:6,7].In Solomon's temple the altar was of larger dimensions (2 Chronicles 4:1. Compare 1 Kings 8:22,64; 9:25), and was made wholly of brass, covering a structure of stone or earth.
This altar was renewed by Asa (2 Chronicles 15:8). It was removed by Ahaz (2 Kings 16:14), and "cleansed" by Hezekiah, in the latter part of whose reign it was rebuilt. It was finally broken up and carried away by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 52:17).
After the return from captivity it was re-erected (Ezra 3:3,6) on the same place where it had formerly stood. (Compare 1Macc. 4:47.) When Antiochus Epiphanes pillaged Jerusalem the altar of burnt offering was taken away.
Again the altar was erected by Herod, and remained in its place till the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 A.D.). The fire on the altar was not permitted to go out (Leviticus 6:9). [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition,published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.]
ALTAR OF INCENSE
The altar of incense (Exodus 30:1-10), called also "the golden altar" (39:38; Numbers 4:11), stood in the holy place "before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony." On this altar sweet spices were continually burned with fire taken from the brazen altar.The morning and the evening services were commenced by the high priest offering incense on this altar. The burning of the incense was a type of prayer (Psalms 141:2; Revelation 5:8; 8:3,4).
This altar was a small movable table, made of acacia wood overlaid with gold (Exodus 37:25,26). It was 1 cubit in length and breadth, and 2 cubits in height.
In Solomon's temple the altar was similar in size, but was made of cedar-wood (1 Kings 6:20; 7:48) overlaid with gold. In Ezekiel 41:22 it is called "the altar of wood." (Compare Exodus 30:1-6.)
In the temple built after the Exile the altar was restored. Antiochus Epiphanes took it away, but it was afterwards restored by Judas Maccabaeus (1Macc 1:23; 4:49).
Among the trophies carried away by Titus on the destruction of Jerusalem the altar of incense is not found, nor is any mention made of it in Hebrews 9.
It was at this altar Zacharias ministered when an angel appeared to him (Luke 1:11). It is the only altar which appears in the heavenly temple (Isaiah 6:6; Revelation 8:3,4). [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition,published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.]
MORNING & EVENING OFFERING WORSHIP
Exod 29:42-43
"It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. "I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory.
PRESENTING AN OFFERING
The overall sacrificial system is quite foreign to our Western culture. The Hebrew expression "to present an offering" is a combination of the verb "to present, bring near, offer" hiqrib and its cognate noun "offering" qorban. One can say that the "offering" was also a "sacrifice" it involved an animal that was killed and then eaten as part of a communal meal. The word "offering" is used as a comprehensive term including both grain and animal offerings.OFFERING A SACRIFICE
"Sacrifice" refers only to animal offerings. The Lord intended that Israel perpetuate the practice of building solitary altars and worshiping at them even after the tabernacle altar existed. These altars and the practice of worship at them were simple compared to worship in the "sanctuary" of the tabernacle and later the temple. The solitary altar system did not include sin and guilt offerings. It was the burning of the offering that made it a pleasing aroma to the Lord which, in turn, caused it to arouse a certain kind of response from the Lord. [Richard E. Averbeck, Offerings and Sacrifices, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology]
The Hebrew word for the nullification of the effects of sin is kapar, "to cover." It is surely not a coincidence that the lid of the box is called "the cover." For this lid not only covers what it is in the box; it is also the place where covering for sin, particularly unconscious sin, is made once a year through sprinkling the blood of a sacrificial animal upon that cover (Lev 16:11-17).
The broken covenant, calling out for the death of those who swore in the name of God that they would be obedient or die, was satisfied by a representive sacrificial death. If the fundamental tenet of the Hebrew faith, God's transcendence, is true, if God cannot be magically manipulated through the creation, then of what ultimate good is the sacrifice of one bull, or, for that matter, tens of thousands of bulls? This seems a hopeless dilemma. God's justice cannot be satisfied magically, but it must be satisfied. God cannot simply ignore it. To do so would be to destroy the whole basis of a world of cause and effect.
SINGING PSALMS
During the morning and evening sacrifices the Levites sang praises to the Lord (I Par, xxiii, 30). These praises would seem to have been the Psalms, since the leader of the Levites in the time of Nehemias was a son of Asaph (II Esd., ix, 17). The titles of many of the Psalms give evidence of their liturgical use in the Temple or the "House of Jahweh" that preceded the temple. The Psalms of Asaph and of the sons of Korah (see PSALMS) at one time made up a liturgical collection for temple service. The sons of Asaph were among the temple Levites (I Par., xxv, 1). The sons of Korah were also a levitical family of temple singers (II Par., xx, 19). In fact, there can be no doubt but the psalms are evidence of a gradual development of a liturgical hymnal for temple service.
PRAYER - SHEMA & THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The temple service probably emphasized reading the "Shema" (Deut., vi, 4-9), together with the Ten Commandments and several benedictions, were recited by the priest at the morning sacrifice (Tamid. V). Josephus (Ant. Jud., IV, viii, 13) dates this synangogal practice from the time of Moses.
The sacred tent (Heb. mishkan, "the dwelling-place"); the movable tent-temple which Moses erected for the service of God, according to the "pattern" which God himself showed to him on the mount (Exodus 25:9; Hebrews 8:5). It is called "the tabernacle of the congregation," rather "of meeting", i.e., where God promised to meet with Israel (Exodus 29:42); the "tabernacle of the testimony" (Exodus 38:21; Numbers 1:50), which does not, however, designate the whole structure, but only the enclosure which contained the "ark of the testimony" (Exodus 25:16,22; Numbers 9:15); the "tabernacle of witness" (Numbers 17:8); the "house of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 23:18); the "temple of the Lord" (Joshua 6:24); a "sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8).
A particular account of the materials which the people provided for the erection and of the building itself is recorded in Exodus 2540-40. The execution of the plan mysteriously given to Moses was intrusted to Bezaleel and Aholiab, who were specially endowed with wisdom and artistic skill, probably gained in Egypt, for this purpose (Exodus 35:30-35). The people provided materials for the tabernacle so abundantly that Moses was under the necessity of restraining them (36:6). These stores, from which they so liberally contributed for this purpose, must have consisted in a great part of the gifts which the Egyptians so readily bestowed on them on the eve of the (Exodus 12:35,36).
The tabernacle was a rectangular enclosure, in length about 45 feet (i.e., reckoning a cubit at 18 inches) and in breadth and height about 15. Its two sides and its western end were made of boards of acacia wood, placed on end, resting in sockets of brass, the eastern end being left open (Exodus 26:22). This framework was covered with four coverings, the first of linen, in which figures of the symbolic cherubim were wrought with needlework in blue and purple and scarlet threads, and probably also with threads of gold (Exodus 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Above this was a second covering of twelve curtains of black goats'-hair cloth, reaching down on the outside almost to the ground (Exodus 26:7-11). The third covering was of rams' skins dyed red, and the fourth was of badgers' skins (Heb. tahash, i.e., the dugong, a species of seal), Exodus 25:5; 26:14; 35:7,23; 36:19; 39:34.
Internally it was divided by a veil into two chambers, the exterior of which was called the holy place, also "the sanctuary" (Hebrews 9:2) and the "first tabernacle" (6); and the interior, the holy of holies, "the holy place," "the Holiest," the "second tabernacle" (Exodus 28:29; Hebrews 9:3,7). The veil separating these two chambers was a double curtain of the finest workmanship, which was never passed except by the high priest once a year, on the great Day of Atonement. The holy place was separated from the outer court which enclosed the tabernacle by a curtain, which hung over the six pillars which stood at the east end of the tabernacle, and by which it was entered.
The order as well as the typical character of the services of the tabernacle are recorded in Hebrews 9; 10:19-22.
The holy of holies, a cube of 10 cubits, contained the "ark of the testimony", i.e., the oblong chest containing the two tables of stone, the pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded.
The holy place was the western and larger chamber of the tabernacle. Here were placed the table for the shewbread, the golden candlestick, and the golden altar of incense.
Round about the tabernacle was a court, enclosed by curtains hung upon sixty pillars (Exodus 27:9-18). This court was 150 feet long and 75 feet broad. Within it were placed the altar of burnt offering, which measured 7 1/2 feet in length and breadth and 4 1/2 feet high, with horns at the four corners, and the laver of brass (Exodus 30:18), which stood between the altar and the tabernacle.
The whole tabernacle was completed in seven months. On the first day of the first month of the second year after the Exodus, it was formally set up, and the cloud of the divine presence descended on it (Exodus 39:22-43; 40:1-38). It cost 29 talents 730 shekels of gold, 100 talents 1,775 shekels of silver, 70 talents 2,400 shekels of brass (Exodus 38:24-31).
The tabernacle was so constructed that it could easily be taken down and conveyed from place to place during the wanderings in the wilderness. The first encampment of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan was at Gilgal, and there the tabernacle remained for seven years (Joshua 4:19). It was afterwards removed to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), where it remained during the time of the Judges, till the days of Eli, when the ark, having been carried out into the camp when the IMG HEIGHT="312" WIDTH="400" ALIGN="RIGHT" ALT="Ark of the Covenant" LOWSRC="http://www.churches.net/churches/utmiss/Graphics/arkcov.jpg"> Israelites were at war with the Philistines, was taken by the enemy (1 Samuel 4), and was never afterwards restored to its place in the tabernacle. The old tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness was transferred to Nob (1 Samuel 21:1), and after the destruction of that city by Saul (22:9; 1 Chronicles 16:39,40), to Gibeon. It is mentioned for the last time in 1 Chronicles 21:29. A new tabernacle was erected by David at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:17; 1 Chronicles 16:1), and the ark was brought from Perez-uzzah and deposited in it (2 Samuel 6:8-17; 2Chr 1:4).
The word thus rendered ('ohel) in Exodus 33:7 denotes simply a tent, probably Moses' own tent, for the tabernacle was not yet erected. [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897].
While the temple certainly has a history and integrity of its own, it was created by extension of the tabernacle and is associated with such diverse topics as a mountain and a city, the cosmos and a person's body, and God's glory and name. The biblical authors from Moses through Ezekiel and Haggai to John of Patmos never describe a complete temple, but offer a vision of what the temple was to be: the locus of the presence of God.Offering a vision rather than a blueprint for the temple is in keeping with the inherent ambiguity of the concept "temple of the Lord, " for how can the transcendent deity be localized in a building? The vision is also in keeping with the function of temple as a symbol. The temple is indeterminate literally and figuratively.
The Preexistence of the Temple. The foundation for temple is laid in the Pentateuch. Already in the patriarchs we find the promise of God's presence: "Do not be afraid, for I am with you, I will bless you" (Gen 26:24). How and where will this presence be mediated?
Although various locales were deemed sacred by virtue of God's presence (Gen 32:30), patriarchal religion did not put much importance on sacred space or the cultic practices that typify Mosaic Yahwism. Nevertheless, in various forms of foreshadowing, we find the usual lines of continuity with later persons, events, institutions, and practices—Scripture's penchant for typology. Thus "Jerusalem, " where centralization of the cult eventually took place, figures prominently in two key texts that address "cultic" issues: in Genesis 22 with the "binding" (sacrifice) of Isaac ("Moriah" cf. 2 Chron 3:1) and in Genesis 14 with the tithe paid to Melchizedek.
With Mosaic Yahwism a change in perspective and practice occurs. God appears to the newly created covenantal community, a community formed by the exodus and, now at Sinai (which parallels Jerusalem as a place par excellence for "visions" of God), given an identity, including instructions where Yahweh's presence—with the full implication of both blessing and danger—would be manifest (Exod. 24-26; 33:12-17).
How would God's presence in the covenant community and ceremony be evident? Inevitably certain symbols were necessary (despite the aniconic nature of Mosaic Yahwism Exod 20:4). The symbols appeal to the senses, but not simply as "visual aids." The ark, cherubim, and the tent of the meeting become the institutional representations of the Lord's presence among his people. Here, in this place, Yahweh appears and makes his will known (Exod 33:7-11).
The tent of the meeting in the Pentateuch, and the priestly tabernacle, is not, however, a projection (or retrojection!) of the temple, but an independent dwelling reflecting the life of Israel prior to settlement and the centralization of worship. The tent is a "portable temple" of sorts, but not provisional nor simply a pattern; rather, the tent is a unique "dwelling."
With the ritual performances in the tabernacle/ temple complex, and the personnel and attendant appurtenances, we come to a theologically significant point about temple practice: coming into the presence of a holy God. In each change of location, vestment, instrument, or ritual act, with their various gradations of importance, the "needs" of the people and the holiness of God come together: I am holy, it is holy, you are (to be) holy.
The extensions and the symbolic associations began early in the canonical literature. As a commentary on the Torah, Deuteronomy expresses the presence of Yahweh in the cult devoid of some simplistic equation of Yahweh's presence constrained by the natural order of cause and effect by utilizing his alter ego, his "name, " as the manifestation of his transcendent reality. Even the ark itself is divested of its throne-like setting by its role as the "container" of the tablets of the law (Deut 10:1-5). Yahweh is not seated on a throne like some dowager duchess.
The paradoxical and symbolic nature of the temple is thus seen as the author(s) construct the parameters of temple theology: the transcendent deity graciously appears before his holy people in the place of his choosing, a dwelling symbolically rich by virtue of its ability to generate varied metaphoric associations (fire, cloud, tent, ark, and most especially "name" in the Pentateuch).
The Construction of the Temple. The construction of the temple began with David to serve as, at least on sociopolitical grounds, a "media event" of divine support and favor. David, however, was deterred from completing the task. No doubt sociopolitical forces played their usual role in this. The biblical authors were not oblivious to these explanations (1 Kings 5:13-18), but characteristically pass theological judgment (1 Chron 22:8-9), or, more important, God himself divulges his feelings on the matter: "Did I ever say … ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar'?" (2 Sam 7:7). God does not require an immutable dwelling, but the metaphoric associations are kept open, even those of monarchal justification (i.e., a "house" like the house in which the monarch resides).
The "cedar house" is ultimately built. And in Solomon's great prayer of dedication the paradox of this dwelling is acknowledged once again by his classic statement: "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27). The paradox is softened by "quoting" the Deuteronomic "name" formula: "My Name shall be [in this place]" (v. 29). (This terminology underscores the point that the correspondence between God's presence and his "dwelling"—tabernacle or temple—is more "textual" than physical.) But what does the Lord think of this structure?
Solomon, like Bezalel before him with the building of the tabernacle, is described as having "wisdom." Unlike Bezalel, however, Solomon sends straightaway for supplies and instructions from Phoenician artisans. Moreover, a labor force is needed to complete the project, a force not unlike what the Israelites experienced in Egypt. Finally, Solomon is portrayed as the central figure in the planning and implementation of the project: "As for this temple that you are building … " (1 Kings 6:12). No editorial judgment from the author is forthcoming from these contrasts, but the reader is left with the impression that Solomon's project is equivocal before God.
The equivocal nature of the project is supported by the Lord's response to it in 1 Kings 9:3-5. The Lord does hallow the place, but it is still Solomon's doing: "I have consecrated this temple which you have built" (v. 3). A clear stipulation is also attached: "if you walk before me" (v. 4; the sanctity of the place must be preserved, at the very least).
Responses to the Temple. What responses do we find in Scripture to the building of the temple beyond those found in the immediate context of it being built?
Rather than "going up" to the mountain of the house of the Lord to hear the word of the Lord, as in the eschatological visions of Isaiah and Micah (4:1-2), the Babylonians "descend" upon the temple to break down its wall and carry off the temple treasures. After centuries of covenant disloyalty, the Lord withdraws his presence from this place (Eze 10:18); in fact, he is driven from the temple because of the abominations of the people (Eze 8:6). This destruction could be seen as one of the contingencies of history except for the interpretations put upon it; the theologian of Lamentations states the destruction of the temple in unequivocal terms: "The Lord determined to tear down the wall of the Daughter of Zion" (2:8). The destruction is purposed by God because the people failed to live before him.
Reconstructing the Temple. High on the agenda of the postexilic community was the rebuilding of the temple. Indeed, it was not long before all their troubles—which were many—were attributed to the disrepair, the virtual absence, of the dwelling of God (Hag 1:3-9). The question must surely be asked: Why? Why, after a stern critique by the prophets, an outmaneuvering in the wisdom tradition, and its abandonment by God and destruction, would the people rebuild this structure?
The most obvious and strongest answer is that the Lord commands its construction (Ezra 1:2). But a further answer lies in the theological sophistication of the biblical authors themselves and in the power of this symbol to go beyond mere structure. The means for rebuilding temple theology are present in the preexilic theology itself, the selfsame theology that so thoroughly critiqued an overly literal-minded approach to the presence of God.
The temple was always symbolic, "textual" even before (and as much as) it was physical. To the extent that the metaphoric associations speak to the reality of our experience(s) before God, the symbol retains its power as a symbol. Although Jeremiah held little esteem for the ark/temple, he nevertheless prophesied that God's throne would be Jerusalem itself (3:17), and Torah would be written in their hearts (31:31-34). These extensions of the symbol are developed further in the New Testament (Rev 21:22-27: "I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple… Nothing impure will ever enter it." ). The relativizing of the temple and moral earnestness that we see in Jeremiah were precisely the points of the Deuteronomic theology that influenced the short-lived reforms of Josiah.
The most extensive view of the new temple comes from Ezekiel. The construction of the temple is once again more ideal than real. In Ezekiel's new temple a remarkable event takes place: water flows from the temple (in Jerusalem) with such abundance that it calls to mind the rivers of paradise (see also Psalm 46:4; Rev 21:6).
The Songs of Zion in the Psalter are particularly rich in their celebration of the temple. With all their "sensuality"—the reader is instructed to "behold" the beauty of the temple; walk about it; clap and shout; smell; bow down; and other sense-oriented activities—the Songs show that one is not to ponder the temple simply as a theological abstraction. The one who enters the temple not only receives spiritual blessings but material ones as well (Psalm 36:7-9).
While we do not find much by way of extensions of this symbol, its paradoxical and metaphoric nature are everywhere testified to in what takes place in the life of the communicant. The most powerful statement of this sort comes in Psalm 73, where the psalmist cries out because his inherited beliefs are at odds with his personal experiences. Everything is "oppressive" (v. 16). "Till I entered the sanctuary of God … " and what unfolds is a transformation of his character and his understanding of God. What happens in the sanctuary? It is, as it should be, unspecified. We are simply told at the end of the psalm that "as for me, it is good to be near God… I will tell of all your deeds."
In sum, by building the temple and by extending the metaphoric associations with temple, a continuity between the pre- and postexilic community was established (Ezra 1:7; Hag 2:9). For all the critique of the temple, in the final analysis, Yahweh takes pleasure in this place and it is a source of delight for those who assemble there (Psalm 43:3-4; 65:4; 84:1).
Jesus, Paul, and Judaism. In Judaism the temple was the religious, cultural, and national center; indeed, the temple was a microcosm of the universe. The power of the temple as a symbol is especially seen in its ability to continue long after the temple building itself was destroyed in a.d. 70.
According to the Gospels, Jesus participated fully in the practices and ethos of the temple. Jesus' birth was announced in the temple (Luke 1:17; 2:27-32), where he was also circumcised and studied with the rabbis as a lad (Luke 2:46). Later, of course, Jesus taught in the temple himself (John 7:14). It is not without significance that while Jesus is teaching in the temple precincts, he says, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me" (John 7:37), and the next day offers forgiveness to the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11). Blessing and forgiveness, priestly functions, are pronounced by Jesus in the shadow of the temple.
Jesus is not only a communicant and priest of sorts; he is also a prophet. Thus, when the temple practices are compromised, Jesus assails those who jeopardize the sanctity of the temple: "My house will be called a house of prayer… But you have made it a den of robbers" (Mark 11:17). They were not living before God. Jesus, while teaching in its precincts, preserves the sanctity of the temple by his ethical admonitions. Even the forgiven woman is told to sin no more (John 8:11; see also John 4:23).
In the cleansing of the temple we also find a development and extension of the metaphoric associations of temple. Jesus employs a wordplay equivocating on the term "body" to break the parochial thinking of his audience (John 2:19). John characteristically points out the error of their literal-mindedness: "But the temple he had spoken of was his body" (John 2:21). Thus, in Jesus' acts and words we see the temple once again as a place of holiness, of danger (words of judgment; Jesus's own death) as well as blessing, and further extensions of the symbol are generated.
Paul also makes the correspondence between the temple and body: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?" (1 Cor 6:19; see also Rom 12:1-2). Of course, the believer can be called the temple of God only because Christ himself is the temple and the believer participates in Christ (1 Cor 3:9-17). The believer, like Paul himself, must be (cultically) pure in order to live in God's presence (2 Cor 2:17). If God can dwell in a holy place, by extension, he could dwell in a holy person!
After the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70, temple theology loses none of its living and healing power since the temple was always "beyond" its physical presence. A theology of temple answers the problem of how God's presence is mediated. Specifically, temple theology recognizes the importance of "sacred space." Its analogue is sacred time—Sabbath, festivals, and appointed times of prayer. Humankind is oriented in time and space, thus Sabbath and temple testify to "eternity" beyond the confines of our usual orientation. Sabbath and temple redeem time and space.
Temple theology shows a high degree of theological sophistication—holding ambivalent attitudes/doctrines in tension, part of the mystery of faith, of paradox. Temple theology is most fruitful when it is functioning as a powerful symbol, with the ability to be fully grounded in (sacred) space and yet generate new metaphoric associations—a vision of life in the presence of the Lord. Even though the temple is both protological and eschatological, it is always grounded in the realities of our lives: it is a mere edifice, yet, Behold! Thy God.
Anthony J. Petrotta
Bibliography
B. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context; R. E. Clements, God and Temple; idem, Wisdom for a Changing World; R. H. Gundry, Somain Biblical Theology; M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel; A. J. Heschel, Quest for God; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms; M. E. Isaacs, An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews; G. Josipovici, The Book of God; K. Koch, The Prophets: The Assyrian Period; C. Koester, The Dwelling of God; H. J. Kraus, The Theology of the Psalms; J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion; J. G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy; W. McKane, ZAW94 (1982): 251-66; D. H. Madvig, NIDNTT, 3; R. Mason, Preaching the Tradition; C. Meyers, Ancient Israelite Religion; R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament; J. Neusner, Wrong Ways and Right Ways in the Study of Formative Judaism; W. Nowottny, The Language Poets Use; D. A. Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God; J. Z. Smith, To Take Place; W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel and Their Place in History; idem, The Religion of the Semites; J. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. [Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology],
The Old Testament regulations for offerings and sacrifices are renowned for their many and complicated details, and the overall sacrificial system is quite foreign to our Western culture. Yet one could hardly overestimate the significance of the Old Testament sacrificial system for the theology of the Bible. Even before the revelation to Moses at Sinai, offerings and sacrifices were a key part of the practice of relationship with God from Cain and Abel, to Noah, to the patriarchs, to Jethro the priest of Median, to the ratification of the Mosaic covenant by sacrifice before the tabernacle was built. They remained central to the ritual systems of the tabernacle and the first and second temples and, therefore, to the Old Testament theology of God's "presence" and his relationship to ancient Israel as his "kingdom of priests." When God became present with us by means of the incarnation of Jesus Christ the Old Testament offerings and sacrifices continued to yield much in terms of Jesus as our sacrifice, Jesus as our High Priest, and our Christian commitment and ministry as a sacrifice to God of ourselves and our kingdom labors.The Old Testament. The Hebrew expression "to present an offering" is a combination of the verb "to present, bring near, offer" (hiqrib) and its cognate noun "offering" (qorban ['B.r'q]). The Hebrew word normally translated "sacrifice" (zebah) does not occur in Leviticus 1-3 until 3:1 in the introduction to the "peace offering" section (see also vv. 3, 6, 9). The term for "offering" continues to be used there (vv. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14). Thus, one can say that the peace offering was a particular kind of "offering" that was also a "sacrifice"—it involved an animal that was killed and then eaten as part of a communal meal.
In this article the word "offering" will be used as a comprehensive term including both grain and animal offerings. "Sacrifice" will refer only to animal offerings.
Offerings and Sacrifices outside the Sanctuary. According to the earthen altar law in Exodus 20:24-26 and the many references to such altars in the early history of Israel as a nation in the land of Canaan, the Lord clearly intended that the Israelites perpetuate the practice of building solitary altars and worshiping at them even after the tabernacle altar existed. These altars and the practice of worship at them were relatively simple compared to that called for in the "sanctuary" (i.e., the tabernacle and later the temple). The sanctuary included a corresponding burnt offering altar but it was also an actual residence of God. The sanctuary system of offerings and sacrifices included the major features of the previously existing external system (i.e., the burnt, grain, drink, and peace offerings at the solitary altars), but the solitary altar system did not include sin and guilt offerings.
Even as early as Genesis 4:3-5 Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the ground and Abel brought one from his flock. The Hebrew term for both offerings in this context is minha, which can be either a general term for "offering, gift, present, tribute" or a specialized term from "grain offering." Some have argued that Cain's offering was rejected precisely because, not being an animal offering, it did not include blood atonement. A better explanation is that the lack of descriptive terms such as "firstfruits" for Cain's offering is conspicuous for its absence in light of the description of Abel's offering as "fat portions" and "firstborn" (Gen 4:3b-4a). Cain's response only made matters progressively worse and may indicate that there was a preexisting problem in Cain's relationship with both God and Abel.
The first reference to "burnt offerings" is Genesis 8:20, where it is said that "Noah built an altar to the Lord, and, taking some off all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it." The word for "sacrifice" (zebah) first occurs in Genesis 31:54 in the covenant-making ceremony between Jacob and Laban: "He [Jacob] offered a sacrifice there in the hill country and invited his relatives to a meal" (cf. Gen 46:1). These two terms occur together in Exodus 10:25, where Moses explained to Pharaoh, "You must allow us to have sacrifices and burnt offerings to present to the Lord our God."
The first occurrence of the term "peace offering" (seblamim, NIV "fellowship offering") is in Exodus 20:24, where the Lord refers to it along with "burnt offerings" as part of the altar law: "Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you." Finally, all three terms appear together in Exodus 24:4-5 in the ritual for the ratification of the covenant at Mount Sinai: "He [Moses] got up early the next morning and built an [earthen] altar at the foot of the mountain… Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the Lord" (here the NIV translates the apposition "sacrifices, fellowship offerings" simply as "fellowship offerings"; both terms are there in Hebrew).
After the tabernacle had been established the nation continued to offer burnt, grain, drink, and peace offerings on solitary earthen altars as well as on the altar in the tabernacle. In fact, the Lord himself commanded that they build such an altar at Shechem (i.e., Mount Ebal) and offer burnt and peace offerings there as part of the initial covenant ceremony in the land (Deut 27:5-7). At least part of the purpose of this ceremony appears to have been to lay claim to the land that the Lord had promised Abram long before when he first entered the land and built an altar in the same general location, near Shechem (Gen 12:6-7). In some cases such altars and the burnt and/or peace offerings presented on them were a means of calling on the name of the Lord in specific situations (see, e.g., Gideon in Judges 6:24-27, ; the Benjamites in Judges 21:3-4, ; Samuel in 1 Sam 7:8-10, ; David in 2 Sam 24:25, ; and Elijah in 1 Kings 18:23-24, 30, 36-39). In other instances altars on high places were used for communal sacrificial meals before the Lord.
Offerings and Sacrifices inside the Sanctuary. From a literary point of view, the rules for burnt, grain, and peace offerings in Leviticus 1-3 is a unified whole. The repetition of the introductory formula and address to "the sons of Israel" in Leviticus 4:1-2 separates the rules for sin and guilt offerings in Leviticus 4:1-6:7 from those in Leviticus 1-3. This seems to be a literary reflection of the historical reality that before and even after the construction of the tabernacle the burnt offerings (Heb. ola) and peace offerings (Heb. seblam"m or zebah, "sacrifice, " or some combination of the two; see below), and the grain offerings that often came with them (Heb. minha see Lev. 2 and Num 15:1-16), constituted a system of offerings used by the faithful at solitary Yahwistic altars outside the tabernacle (see above).
The burnt offering. The burnt offering could be from the cattle (Lev 1:3-9), the sheep and goats (vv. 10-13), or the birds (vv. 14-17 usually limited to the poor, e.g., Lev 12:8; 14:22). Amid the diversity of different kinds of animal offerings and the many distinctive ways they were offered to the Lord it appears that there was one constant in the presentation of sacrificial animals: the laying on of the hand (or pl. hands if more than one person was involved). The purpose of this act was to identify the offerer with his or her offering and possibly also to designate or consecrate the offering for the purposes of the offering: "He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him" (Lev 1:4). The laying on of the hand did not transfer anything to the offering animal, least of all sin. Only holy things could have contact with the altar. In the scapegoat ritual the high priest was to lay both hands on the animal and confess the sins of the whole congregation in order to expressly transfer the sins to the goat. But in that case the animal was not offered upon the altar but instead sent as far away from the altar as possible (e.g., Lev 16:21-22).
The normal form of blood manipulation for the burnt offering was relatively simple: the priest would "splash it around on the altar" (Lev 1:5). This was not just a way of disposing of the blood, but a way of offering it on the altar. It corresponded to arranging the pieces of the animal's carcass on the altar (Lev 1:8-9).
The offerer normally slaughtered the animal, but the priests placed its various parts on the altar fire (Lev 1:7-9a) "to burn all of it on the altar" as a "burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord" (v. 9b). The basic principle behind the burnt offering was that the whole animal was offered on the altar, that is, with the exception of the hide of the larger animals that had been skinned as part of the slaughtering process (Lev 1:6; 7:8) and "the crop" of the birds "with its contents" (Lev 1:16).
It was the burning of the offering that made it a pleasing aroma to the Lord which, in turn, caused it to arouse a certain kind of response from the Lord. According to Genesis 8:20-22 it was the pleasing aroma of the burning meat that led the Lord to promise that he would never again destroy the earth and mankind as he had done in the flood. The burnt offering was a way of calling on the Lord to pay attention to the needs, requests, and entreaties of his worshipers either independently or in association with the peace offering. It was also a means of expressing worshipful responses to the Lord (Lev 22:18-20) and, along with its accompanying grain offerings, was the staple of the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual festival cycle in the sanctuary (Exod 29:38-45; Num. 28-29 ).
The grain and drink offering. The Hebrew term for "grain offering" is minha, which, as noted above, can also mean generally "gift, present, tribute." In Leviticus (and other sanctuary contexts) it always means "grain offering." The grain offering pericope in Leviticus 2 stands between the burnt and peace offering chapters (Lev. 1 and 3, respectively). This is as it should be since the grain offering was a regular part of a burnt or peace offering along with a prescribed libation (Num 15:1-15).
Like the grain offering, the practice of offering drink offerings (i.e., libations) predates the tabernacle system and continued at other altars even after the tabernacle and temple were available (see above). However, within the sanctuary system they constituted a significant part of the ritual procedures even on a regular daily basis. It was specifically legislated that libations along with grain offerings should normally accompany any burnt or peace offering (Num 15:1-5).
The priest was to offer a part of the grain offering on the burnt offering altar as a "memorial (portion)" to the Lord along with the salt of the covenant (v. 13). If the grain was offered raw then incense was to be added to the memorial portion to lend it an especially pleasing aroma as it burned on the altar (vv. 1-2, 15-16). According to the law of the test of adultery in Numbers 5:11-31 the purpose of the "memorial (portion)" (see v. 26 there) seems to have been to call to mind the reason for the offering in the presence of the Lord. The term itself is directly related to the Hebrew verb meaning "to remember" and in this passage the whole of the grain offering was viewed as literally "an offering of memorial causing remembrance of iniquity" (5:15b; cf. v. 18). The grain offering of jealousy did not include oil or frankincense because it called to mind the accusation of iniquity. The grain offering used as a sin offering was similar (vv. 11-13).
Since the memorial portion was burned on the altar, the whole of the grain offering was to be unleavened with no honey added (Lev 2:11), and the priests were to consume the remainder as unleavened cakes (Lev 6:16-17). The prohibition against leaven and honey is probably best explained by their association with decay through fermentation. The "bread of presence" placed on the table before the Lord in the Holy Place every Sabbath was also conceived of as a "grain offering" (Lev 24:5-9).
Leviticus 2:13 refers to the importance of adding "the salt of the covenant of your God" to every grain offering. This expression occurs in only two other places in the Old Testament: once in reference to the covenant commitment of the Lord to provide for the Aaronic priests (Num 18:19) and once in reference to the covenant commitment to the dynasty of David and his descendants (2 Chron 13:5). The preserving character of salt suggests the enduring nature of the covenant bond between the Lord and his people. The commitment was permanent.
The peace (or fellowship) offering. The peace offering emphasizes the fact that the people of ancient Israel had the opportunity for close communion with the Lord. They could eat the flesh of an animal that had been presented, identified, and consecrated as an offering to the Lord (Lev 3:1-2; 7:11-21). This signified that all was well (i.e., peaceful) in the relationship between the Lord and his people and therefore always came last when offered in a series with other kinds of offerings.
The blood manipulation for a peace offering was normally the same as that for a burnt offering (Lev 3:2b; cf. vv. 8,13 ). However, only the fat parts of the carcass were offered on the altar to be burned "as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord" (vv. 5, 11, 16). Thus, the fat parts of the carcass became like the whole carcass of the burnt offering and accomplished the same purpose. It is likely that the fat was not to be eaten because it was viewed as a delicacy. For example, according to Deuteronomy 32:13-14 the Lord fed the people the best of the land including, among other things, the "fat" of lambs, rams, goats, and even wheat as well as the "blood" of grapes. The "fat of the kidneys of the wheat" (v. 14) is clearly a play on words for the best of the wheat.
Leviticus 7:11-34 is important to a fuller understanding of the peace offering. Aside from the prohibition against eating blood or fat in verses 22-27, there are two major sections here. The first deals with the various kinds of worship rationale associated with the peace offering (thanksgiving, votive, or freewill) and rules for eating the meat that went to the offerers (vv. 11-21). The second section is about the portions that went to the priests from every peace offering (vv. 28-34): the breast of the "wave offering" (vv. 29-31; the noun derives from the Hebrew verb, "to wave") and the right thigh of the "contribution" to the particular priest who officiated at the offering of the particular peace offering (vv. 32-33). The latter derives from the Hebrew verb "to raise up" and for that reason is called a "heave offering" in some English versions (cf. English "to heave, " meaning to lift, raise up). However, in ritual contexts this verb actually means "to remove" something in order to present it to the Lord (i.e., to set it aside as a special contribution).
These were the standard prebend for the priests (Lev 7:34) and they could be eaten in any clean place (Lev 10:14; i.e., they were "holy, " not "most holy, " contrast the grain offering prebend in vv. 12-13 ). Therefore, not only the priests themselves, but also all who lived in their households and were clean could eat of these portions of the peace offerings, but no common persons of a non-priestly household (Lev 22:10-16). For a common person to eat of these portions would be to violate the sancta, the holy things of the Lord (see the "guilt offering" below).
The sin (or purification) offering. The sin offering was the primary blood atonement offering in the sanctuary system of offerings through which worshipers could receive forgiveness for their sin and deal with the degree to which they might have contaminated the tabernacle. Very detailed rules of blood manipulation were the focal point of this ritual procedure.
Leviticus 4:1-2a sets the sin offering pericope off from Leviticus 1-3. Unlike the previous sections virtually every paragraph in Leviticus 4:1-5:13 either begins or ends with a statement of sin committed and its associated guilt. Leviticus 4:2 states: "Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands…'" Leviticus 4:3 then begins the first of the four major divisions: the sin offering of the priest (4:3-12), the whole congregation (4:13-21), the leader (4:22-26), and the common person (4:27-5:13).
Sin offerings were used on several unique occasions (see, e.g., the consecration of the priests, Exod 29:14, 36; Lev 8:2, 14; the inauguration of altar worship, Lev 9:2-7, 8-11, 15-17). They were also called for on regular occasions monthly (Num 28:15), at various annual festivals, and especially on the annual Day of Atonement (Exod 30:10; Lev 16; Num 29:11). Other specific situations that occurred throughout the year would also require a sin offering (e.g., the cleansing of the woman after childbirth, Lev 12:6-8; the cleansing of irregular unclean discharges, Lev 15:15, 30; in our age the term "sin offering" could be construed to mean that this offering focused on the problem of moral and social sin. In the Old Testament such sins were included as part of the purpose for sin offerings, but the sin offering could also be brought for physical impurities that had nothing to do with moral failure ).
The focal point of the sin offering ritual was blood manipulation and the way it was done was different when it was brought for the priest and whole congregation as opposed to the leader and the common people. For the priests and the whole congregation the priest sprinkled the blood with his finger seven times in front of the veil of the sanctuary (i.e., the tent of meeting inside the tabernacle complex), put some of the blood on the horns of the incense altar inside the Holy Place, and simply poured out the remainder of the blood at the base of the burnt offering altar near the gate of the tabernacle complex (Lev 4:6-7,17-18). In other words, the blood penetrated the tabernacle complex as far as the contamination did (i.e., the "priest" could enter the Holy Place, and the "congregation" included the priests). The blood of the leader and the common Israelite was applied only to the horns of the burnt offering altar (Lev 4:30, 34; 5:9), which was the boundary of penetration for the nonpriestly Israelite into the tabernacle. The principle is that the blood went as far as the particular person or collective group of persons could go and, therefore, decontaminated the tabernacle to that point.
Leviticus 16:29-34 is a summary of the intended effect of the three sin offerings on the Day of Atonement: the scapegoat sin offering cleansed the people from their sins (vv. 29-31), and the slaughtered sin offerings for the priests and the people cleansed the tabernacle from the impurity of their sins (vv. 32-33). Some scholars have argued that the cultic regulations dealt with only cultic infringements, and that the cultic system and the larger everyday community life of the nation were disconnected. However, the scapegoat ritual suggests that this was not the case. On the contrary, the Day of Atonement cleansed both the cultic impurities and the various kinds of iniquities of the people that could defile the tabernacle. The tabernacle holiness and purity emphasized in Leviticus 1-16 and the national holiness and purity which is the primary concern of Leviticus 17-27 were viewed in close relationship to each other—so close that both were dealt with on the Day of Atonement.
The guilt (or reparation) offering. The purpose of the guilt offering was to make atonement for "desecration" of "sancta, " that is, the mishandling of holy (sacred) things by treating them as if they were common rather than holy. For example, according to Leviticus 22:10-16 the holy food gifts were to be eaten by the priests and those in their household, not the common people. To do so would be to "profane" the "holy" gifts (v. 15). However, if a common person ate holy meat mistakenly, then he had to give the same amount back to the priests plus one-fifth as reparation for what he had done. This passage is an instructive parallel to the major guilt offering pericope (i.e., Lev 5:14-6:7).
The guilt offering law begins as follows: "When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord's holy things" (Lev 5:15a). The word "unintentionally" is the same one used in reference to the sin offering. It refers to "straying" or "erring" from the commands of the Lord, in this case, specifically the commands about "the Lord's holy things" (i.e., the things dedicated to the Lord for the tabernacle or priesthood).
The basic idea behind the expression "commits a violation" is that the person has acted unfaithfully against God by violating the boundary between the common and the holy. In this context, therefore, it means "to commit a sacrilege." However, the guilt offering was also brought in cases of violations against the property of other people, not only the Lord's "sancta" (Lev 6:1-7; 19:20-22; Num 5:5-10). Therefore, whether the property belonged to the Lord or to other people, a guilt offering was presented to the Lord to make atonement and the violated property was restored plus one-fifth to the one whose property had been violated (Lev 5:14-16, ; the Lord's property Lev 6:1-7; Num 5:5-10, ; other people's property ). Therefore some scholars refer to this as the "reparation offering." The violator not only brought the offering to the Lord but also made reparation for the property he had violated. In both cases the final result for the one who committed the violation was that it would "be forgiven him" (Lev 5:16, 18; 6:7). Once the reparation had been made it was possible for the offender to make atonement and receive forgiveness from the Lord (vv. 15b and 16b).
The violation in le 5:15 was done "in error" and "known" by the violator. The violation in verses 17-18 was also done "in error" but it was "not known" by the violator. The assumption is that he might come to know his error either through remembering after the fact or being informed by another person that, for example, the meat he had eaten was from the "holy" portion that belonged to a priest and his family. Even though it was done in ignorance (vv. 17-18), if he did indeed come to know about it he was still responsible for bringing a guilt offering to make atonement and obtain forgiveness (vv. 18-19).
A good example of the use of the guilt offering is the ritual procedure for the cleansing of the "leper" (Lev 14:1-20; the term "leper" probably includes any person whose skin showed any kind of infectious blemishes ). After the initial cleansing by special water and the "scapebird" (vv. 1-9), the first standard blood atonement ritual was the guilt offering (vv. 10-18). The point of the guilt offering at the beginning of this series of offerings was to reconsecrate the leper so that he could once again become part of the "kingdom of priests, a holy nation" (Exod 19:6) from which he had been expelled and therefore, in a sense, "desecrated" because of his diseased condition (Lev 13:45-46).
The word for guilt offering also occurs in Isaiah 53:10, where it is said of the suffering servant "though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand." How was the suffering servant a guilt offering? The answer is that he was estranged and "desecrated" from the nation as a leper was estranged and desecrated. He suffered this at the hands of and yet also on behalf of the nation in order to make atonement for them before the Lord. In the days of Isaiah the ultimate suffering servant was yet to come, the Lord Jesus Christ. That brings us to the New Testament.
The New Testament. The verb thuo, [quvw] "to slaughter, sacrifice" an animal, is used fourteen times in the New Testament referring to (1) nonsacrificial animals killed (John 10:10; Acts 10:13; 11:7) and prepared for a wedding feast (Matt 22:4) or other kind of celebration (Luke 15:23,27,30); (2) the slaughter of the Passover lamb (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; 1 Cor 5:7); and (3) offerings to pagan gods (Acts 14:13, 18; 1 Cor 10:20).
The noun thusia, [qusiva] "sacrifice, offering, act of offering" (cf. the verb above), occurs twenty-nine times referring, for example, to specific Old Testament passages (e.g., Matt 9:13; 12:7), fulfillment of Old Testament sacrificial regulations (Luke 2:24) or festival celebrations (1 Cor 10:18), and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Eph 5:2). Prosphora [prosforav], "offering, sacrifice, gift; act of offering; grain offering" (9 occurrences; cf. the verb prosphero [prosforav], "to offer, present"), refers to Christ's presentation of himself to God as an offering (Eph 5:2, ; Heb 10:10, 14) and the Old Testament offerings (Heb 10:5,8). The term doron [dw'ron], "gift, " occurs nineteen times in the New Testament; sixteen of those times it refers to sacrificial gifts or offerings to God.
Jesus Christ and the Old Testament Sacrificial System. During his incarnation Jesus explicitly honored the Mosaic sacrificial system (Matt 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14; 17:14). He lived as a Jew and encouraged others to also keep every "smallest letter" and "least stroke of a pen" (Matt 5:18). However, he was also in continuity with the Old Testament prophetic critique of the cult. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus suggested that the relationship with one's brother needed to be resolved before presenting offerings in the temple (Matt 5:23-24). He also expressed frustration with loopholes in the present priestly system whereby one could violate other Old Testament laws (e.g., the requirement to honor one's parents by taking care of them) by substituting the cultic piety of making offerings to the Lord (Matt 15:5; Mark 7:11, ; the well-known "corban" passage ).
Another dimension of the relationship between Jesus and the Old Testament sacrificial system is his own personal identification with different aspects of the system. There are two aspects of this: Jesus as our High Priest and Jesus as the sacrificial victim offered to God on the altar. It is important to remember that the New Testament offers a metaphorical application of the categories of the Old Testament system of offerings and sacrifices to Jesus in order to explain and illustrate the various ways in which his death on the cross was beneficial to us. Jesus was not literally slaughtered at the burnt offering altar, his blood was not applied there, and his body was not burned there. Nevertheless, the different kinds of offerings and sacrifices serve as metaphors to illustrate the various purposes and complete efficacy of Jesus' death on the cross.
Jesus as our "Passover sacrifice." There are many possible references to Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in the New Testament. However, the most certain of them all is in the exhortation to purity in 1 Corinthians 5:7, "Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." In the context Paul uses this to rebuke the Corinthians for not removing an evil man from their church fellowship. The Passover sacrifice was associated with the removal of leaven from every Jewish household (see Exod 12:15-20; and cf. Mishnah Pesahim 1-3 ). Therefore, the leaven image could be used to refer to the polluting effect of one evil person in the midst of the congregation. Since Christ has already been sacrificed it was certainly time now to get rid of the leaven.
Jesus as our suffering servant "guilt offering." When John the Baptist said "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), it is not certain whether he was referring to Jesus as the Passover lamb or as the suffering servant of the Lord mentioned in Isaiah 53:7b, "he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." The Passover lamb option has been favored by some but the general consensus is that it refers to Isaiah 53:7.
Jesus as our new covenant ratification "peace offering." According to lu 22:1-23, the "last supper" of Jesus was a Passover meal. Toward the end of that meal Jesus created a new ritual on the foundation of the Passover ritual. The new ritual is the basis of the ordinance that we have now come to call "Communion, " the "Eucharist, " the "Last Supper, " or the "Lord's Supper." As is well known it includes Jesus words over the bread (Luke 22:19) and the cup (Luke 22:20). Both elements were part of the underlying Passover ritual, but Jesus referred to the bread as his own "body" and the cup as his own "blood."
Jesus referred to the cup as "the new covenant in my blood." The similarity to Moses' statement in Exodus 24:8 that "this is the blood of the covenant" makes it inconceivable that the apostles would have failed to connect Jesus' words with the covenant ratification ritual back in Exodus 24. In this case, however, the blood was for the ratification of the new covenant, which of course recalls Jeremiah 31:31-37 (see esp. v. 31).
Jesus as our "sin offering." The Old Testament word for "sin offering" can also mean "sin." According to the NIV translation of Romans 8:3, God sent his Son "in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering" but marginal option is "in likeness of sinful man, for sin, " which reflects the fact that the Greek text has only the word "sin." This translation problem appears again in 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul writes, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us." In this case the NIV translation decision is reversed from that in Romans 8:3 because here the marginal option is "to be a sin offering for us." The important question is, did Christ become "sin" or did he become a "sin offering" for us? From an Old Testament cultic perspective the translation "sin offering" might make more sense in these passages.
It is the sin offering rationale that is at the foundation of atonement, redemption, forgiveness, and purification terminology and concepts in the New Testament. For example, according to Romans 3:24b-25a, we are justified before God "through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood." It will be recalled that the offering with which atonement was most associated was the sin offering. Moreover, the sin offering blood atonement was foundational to Old Testament forgiveness.
In the New Testament the connection between redemption or atonement and forgiveness of sins is also explicit. For example, in its context the reference to Jesus as "the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) is a continuation of the argument that "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
The sacrifice of Jesus and the whole Old Testament sacrificial system. Hebrews 9-10 opens with a summary of the Old Testament sanctuary system, beginning with a description of the sanctuary itself and ending with the distinction between the sacrifices that were offered throughout the year versus the Day of Atonement. The background is the quotation of the new covenant passage from Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8, to which the writer will return in Hebrews 10:16-17. In the meantime Hebrews 9:1-10:15 is devoted to a comparison between: (1) the Old Testament sacrificial system in general versus the sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:8-14), (2) the Old Testament covenant ratification sacrifice (Exod 24:5-8) versus the new covenant sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:15-20; see above ), (3) the cleansing of the Old Testament tabernacle with blood (Exod 29:10-14; Lev 8:15; Num 7:1) versus the blood of Christ cleansing the heavenly tabernacle (Heb 9:21-24), and (4) the Old Testament Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) versus the sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:25-10:14).
With regard to the sacrificial system in general, the writer begins by saying that, since even the high priest could only enter the most holy place once a year (9:7), therefore, "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the most holy place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing" (9:8). The first reason for this is that the Old Testament gifts and sacrifices "were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper" (9:9b). This stands in contrast to the sacrifice of Christ our High Priest. The Old Testament sacrifices accomplished only the "cleansing of the flesh" (v. 13, NASB) whereas the blood of Christ cleansed the "conscience" (v. 14).
With regard to covenant ratification, since Christ's sacrifice was better than the sacrifices that ratified the covenant at Sinai (vv. 18-20), the covenant ratified by his sacrifice was a better covenant (i.e., the new covenant, v. 15). Moreover, regarding the use of blood to cleanse the tabernacle (Heb 9:21-24), it is well known that this was the essential purpose of the sin offering in the Old Testament sacrificial system. However, there is no mention of sprinkling the whole "tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies" (Heb 9:21) with blood on that day.
The final section of the writer's excursus on the Old Testament sacrificial system is the most extended of the four (Heb 9:25-10:15). In it he recalls that the Old Testament sacrifices could not remove the "conscience of sins" (10:2). Instead, those sacrifices were "an annual reminder of sins" (10:3). Thus, he brings his earlier argument with regard to the level of cleansing accomplished by the Old Testament sacrifices (i.e., they only worked on the level of the flesh) into his discussion of the temporal limitations of the cleansing accomplished by the Old Testament sacrifices. Even the annual Day of Atonement sacrifices only accomplished cleansing for one year (9:25-10:4), much less the regular offerings, which were even more limited since they had to be offered time after time throughout the year (10:10-11).
It is important to recognize that the difference in sacrificial efficacy corresponds to the difference between the two covenants to which the sacrifices were relate. In the old covenant the law was written on tablets of stone, but in the new covenant it was written on the tablets of human hearts (2 Cor 3:3). No law, not even God's law, can change the heart (i.e., cleanse the conscience) of a person unless it is somehow written on the heart of the person. The new covenant functions on this very level by the power of the Holy Spirit who works in the human heart. He applies the law, including the sacrificial law, to the heart (conscience) of the person who trusts in Christ by faith. He thereby transforms their heart and with it their life.
The Christian and the Old Testament sacrificial system. The fact that the Old Testament sacrifices and the New Testament sacrifice of Christ functioned on altogether different levels is reflected also in the fact that Paul was willing to continue to offer temple sacrifices long after he had become a Christian. In fact, he even paid for other Jewish Christians to do the same thing and thereby encouraged the practice (Acts 21:23-26). This suggests that, although he did not see himself or any other Jewish or Gentile Christian as being under the law, nevertheless, the apostle Paul did indeed view the Old Testament sacrificial system as a legitimate means of expressing piety and worship for first-century Jewish believers. This, of course, ended with the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70, but by that time Paul was also off the scene.
In the meantime, Paul also used the Old Testament sacrificial laws as a metaphorical foundation for teaching Christian life principles and practices. The foundation for this metaphorical shift was already laid in the Old Testament, where we find such statements as, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Psalm 51:17). Therefore, in view of the multitude of mercies that God has shown to us, the apostle Paul urges Christians to "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom 12:1, ; NASB ). To live as a sacrifice involves several things. For Paul it meant that he was willing to be "poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service" of those whom he led to the Lord (Php 2:17). Sometimes this required suffering. Paul was no stranger to it and the apostle Peter used the example of Jesus as the suffering servant to encourage Christians to be willing to suffer patiently for Christ (1 Peter 2:18-25).
Other New Testament metaphorical applications of sacrificial law to the Christian life focus on the service and worship we can offer to God. For example, Paul viewed the fruit of his ministry to the Gentiles as "an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Rom 15:16b). Finally, the writer of Hebrews exhorts us to "continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name" and "to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased" (13:15-16). In a sense, therefore, just as Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial laws, in a similar way we can fulfill them by living like Jesus lived.
Richard E. Averbeck
Bibliography.
G. A. Anderson, ABD, 5:870-86; C. Brown, NIDNTT, 3:415-38; P. J. Budd, The World of Ancient Israel; W. W. Hallo, The Book of the People; M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel; J. Henninger, The Encyclopedia of Religion, 12:544-57; P. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World; H. J. Klauck, ABD, 5:886-91; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School; J. Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16; idem, Numbers; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2:415-56; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus; D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity.
(kal'-en-dar) (Latin calendarium, "an account book," from calendae, "day on which accounts were due"): The Hebrew or Jewish calendar had three stages of development: the preexilic, or Biblical; the postexilic, or Talmudic; and the post-Talmudic. The first rested on observation merely, the second on observation coupled with calculation, and the third on calculation only. In the first period the priests determined the beginning of each month by the appearance of the new moon and the recurrence of the prescribed feasts from the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Thus, the month Abib ('abhibh), the first month of the year according to the Levitical law, in which the Passover was to be celebrated, was determined by observation. After the exile more accurate methods of determining the months and seasons came into vogue, and calculation was employed to supplement and correct observations and the calendar was regulated according to the Babylonian system, as is evidenced by the names of the months which are derived from it. In later times the calendar was fixed by mathematical methods (see the article "Calendar" in the Jewish Encyclopedia). The difficulty of ascertaining the first day of the new moon by observation, in the early period, led to the celebration of two days, as seems to be indicated in <1 Sam 20:27>. We have only four names of months belonging to the pre-exilic period, and they are Phoenician Of these Abib ('abhibh) was the first month, as already indicated, and it corresponded to Nisan (nican) in the later calendar. It was the month in which the Exodus occurred and the month of the Passover . The 2nd month of this calendar was Ziv (ziw) <1 Kin 6:1,37>; Ethanim ('ethanim) was the 7th <1 Kin 8:2>, corresponding to Tishri of the later calendar, and Bul (bul) the 8th, corresponded to Marchesvan (marcheshwan) <1 Kin 6:38>. There were of course other month names in this old calendar, but they have not come down to us. These names refer to the aspects of the seasons: thus Abib ('abhibh) means grain in the ear, just ripening
; Ziv (ziw) refers to the beauty and splendor of the flowers in the spring; Ethanim ('ethanim) means perennial, probably referring to living fountains; and Bul (bul) means rain or showers, being the month when the rainy season commenced. The full calendar of months used in the postexilic period is given in a table accompanying this article. The names given in the table are not all found in the Bible, as the months are usually referred to by number, but we find Nican in and ; Siwan in ; Tammuz in , although the term as here used refers to a Phoenician god after whom the month was named; 'Elul occurs in ; Kiclew (the American Standard Revised Version "chislev") in and ; Tebheth in ; ShebhaT in and 'Adhar in and several times in Est. These months were lunar and began with the new moon, but their position in regard to the seasons varied somewhat because of the intercalary month about every three years. The year (shanah) originally began in the autumn, as appears from
and <34:22>, where it is stated that the feast of Ingathering should be at the end of the year; the Sabbatic year began, also, in the 7th month of the calendar year , indicating that this had been the beginning of the year. This seems to have been a reckoning for civil purposes, while the year beginning with Nican was for ritual and sacred purposes. This resulted from the fact that the great feast of the Passover occurred in this month and the other feasts were regulated by this, as we see from such passages as and . Josephus (Ant, I, iii, 3) says: "Moses appointed that Nican, which is the same with Xanthicus, should be the first month of their festivals, because he brought them out of Egypt in that month; so that this month began the year as to all solemnities they observed to the honor of God, although he preserved the original order of the months as to selling and buying and other ordinary affairs." A similar custom is still followed in Turkey, where the Mohammedan year is observed for feasts, the pilgrimage to Mecca and other sacred purposes, while the civil year begins in March O.S. The year was composed of 12 or 13 months according as to whether it was ordinary or leap year. Intercalation is not mentioned in Scripture, but it was employed to make the lunar correspond approximately to the solar year, a month being added whenever the discrepancy of the seasons rendered it necessary. This was regulated by the priests, who had to see that the feasts were duly observed at the proper season. The intercalary month was added after the month of 'Adhar and was called the second 'Adhar (sheni, wa-'- adhar, "and Adar"), and, as already indicated, was added about once in 3 years. More exactly, 4 years out of every 11 were leap years of 13 months (Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Calendar"), this being derived from the Babylonian calendar. If, on the 16th of the month Nican, the sun had not reached the vernal equinox, that month was declared to be the second 'Adhar and the following one Nican. This method, of course, was not exact and about the 4th century of our era the mathematical method was adopted. The number of days in each month was fixed, seven having 30 days, and the rest 29. When the intercalary month was added, the first 'Adhar had 30 and the second 29 days. [International Standard Bible Encylopaedia]
H. PORTER
John 4:20-23
"Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
If we look at the context of the day Jesus spoke these words we would see a day typified by temples. Glorious pagan temples dotted the ancient Roman world of the first century. The temple at Jerusalem itself was a wonder of the ancient construction. Many pagans believed their particular deity or deities actually resided in the confines of their temple. The Jews of course had no such theology. Jews understood that God Himself only reluctantly allowed His name to be associated with a building made with human hands. Yahweh consistently revealed Himself as neither local or finite in His person. But the false deities of the ancient Roman world were often worshiped nearest the location of their image which was stored in a temple.
After the death of Christ around A. D. 33, the world of temples was deeply shaken. Gospel authors say at the time of the cross the holy of holies in Jerusalem was exposed by a torn veil. Barely forty years later the entire temple was dismantled stone by stone by an angry Rome fulfilling Jesus' prophecy. Jews went on building synagogues for worship throughout the Roman empire similar in construction with those in Jesus' day. Christians went forward gathering first in homes, and then in churches designed to have much in common with first century Jewish synagogues.
WHAT TRANSFORMED THE WORLD'S IDEA OF THE NEED FOR TEMPLES? Non believing Jews were excluded from the temple grounds except for the "Court of the Gentiles." The Law carefully respected God's holiness. God loved the world, but humans who had not been cleansed according to His Law entered under a threat of severe punishment and even death. Some work necessitated entering the holy of holies once each year. Only the high priest go behind the veil on the Yom Kippur, [Day of Atonement, Lev 16:2,34; Heb 9:7].
But holiness did not include the meaning of secretive. Hebrew priests were behind closed doors doing secret things. Everything the priests did in their work at the temple was fully revealed by a holy God. We can read about every detail of this work in the Law itself [Exo 30:7-10, Lev 4:5-7; 24:1-9]. The work going on there was the carefully prescribed work of priests in carrying out the ongoing work of making offerings and sacrifices for God's people.
The work of Christ on the cross completed and fulfilled all that work in the temples that had been going on for centuries. Suddenly in a moment Christ completed from the cross a sufficient offering and sacrifice. There was no further need for altars, temples or tabernacles after Christ.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.Eph 2:13-18
But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both {groups into} one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, {which is} the Law of commandments {contained} in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, {thus} establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.Heb 4:15-16
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.Hebrews 9:8
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing"Heb 10:19-22
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since {we have} a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
You will also see evidence of how Mormon leaders view the Tabernacle, Solomon's temple as well as various Maya temples. Was their design and function similar? Modern Maya scholars have discovered these people were among the bloodiest people in the ancient world. Human sacrifice and blood letting was regularly associated with these temples and the rest of Mayan life. Yet we see modern President of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, dedicating a new LDS temple in Mexico City which was designed to look just like an important Maya temple. Were the Maya really followers of Jesus Christ? Modern temple Mormons should begin asking important questions about the roots of their temple worship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALL DISPENSATIONS HAD ENDOWMENTS
Since the nature of man has not changed since the fall of Adam,1 it requires the same ordinances and powers of the gospel to save mankind at one time or another. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ has been the same in every age of the world. The gospel with its ordinances was first revealed to Adam and was taught and practiced by the ancient saints at various times from Adam to the time of Jesus. Since the plan of salvation is older than this earth, there has been no difficulty in the Lord revealing the same ordinances and principles in every dispensation.2BOOK OF ABRAHAM CONNECTION
The gospel that was taught to the ancients contained certain fundamental elements of the temple endowment, as is verified by the explanation to Figure 3, Facsimile No. 2, of the Book of Abraham We are also told that the Lord has ''always commanded'' his people to build special houses for the administration of sacred ordinances. (See D&C 124:39–40.)NO WORK FOR THE DEAD PREVIOUS TO JESUS DEATH
Thus, ordinances that are now performed in the temple have been available to men and women living upon the earth whenever the gospel was preached and received among them. However, we understand that no ordinances were performed for the dead until after Jesus died and inaugurated the preaching of the gospel in the world of departed spirits. 3
Thereafter, the Church in the meridian of time was privileged to perform the ordinances of the gospel not only for the living, as had been done in earlier dispensations, but also for the dead. This is partially evidenced by Paul's reference to baptism for the dead, (See 1 Cor. 15 29).
PETER, PAUL & JOHN
The temple ceremony pertains to exaltation and eternal life and references in the New Testament show that the members of the Church at that time knew that. For example, Peter reminded the Saints that they had been given ''all things that pertain unto life and godliness, …Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…" (2 Pet 1:3–4.) Paul spoke of obtaining a ''crown of righteousness" (2 Tim 4:8), and of the saints becoming ''heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." (Rom. 8:17.) And John wrote of the faithful becoming ''kings and priests unto God'' to ''reign on the earth,'' (Rev. 1:6. 5:10.)TEMPLE MORMONS RECOGNIZE ENDOWMENT LANGUAGE
In the Church we recognize these as matters pertaining to the higher ordinances of the gospel that are administered in the temple. That such things are mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament epistles is significant, because these epistles were not written for nonmembers but were of a regulatory nature directed to the branches of the Church. The manner in which these items are presented in the epistles, without explanation, is indicative that the persons to whom the epistles were written were already familiar with the doctrines. Consequently, those in the Church today who are familiar with temple ordinances can understand from these epistles that the saints in the New Testament times had the same temple blessings and ordinances.PRESIDENT KIMBALL
President Heber C. Kimball taught that the temple endowment that is in the Church in this dispensation is the same in principle as it was in the ancient Church. He further noted that Jesus "was the one that inducted his Apostles into these ordinances." 4PRESIDENT JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH
President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that it was his belief that Peter, James. and John received their endowments on the Mount of Transfiguration.5 Since they were instructed not to tell of the occurrences on the Mount until after Jesus was ''risen again from the dead'' (Matt. 17:9), it appears that similar blessings were not given to the other members of the Twelve, or to the Church, until after the Savior's resurrection.APOCRYPHAL EVIDENCE
Furthermore, there is a strong suggestion from apocryphal sources that the 40-day post-resurrection ministry of Jesus consisted in part of the establishment of a sacred ritual among the disciples. 6 LUKE IDENTIFIES PERIOD OF ENDOWMENT REVELATION
The scriptures are quite silent concerning the details of this, but Luke identifies it as a time in which Jesus was "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3.)Although today we refer to these sacred items as "temple" ordinances, they could be administered in other locations under certain circumstances if no temple were available. This principle is alluded to in Doctrine and Covenants 124:28–31.
MOUNTAIN HOLY PLACES
High mountains and other places have served as holy sites until a temple could be constructed. 7 As a consequence, at one period of time baptisms for the dead were performed in the Mississippi River at Nauvoo;8 and endowments were given on Ensign Peak at the north edge of the Salt Lake Valley.9 Likewise an endowment house was erected in the northwest corner of Temple Square and used until the Salt Lake Temple was built.10 Since the temple in Jerusalem was in the hands of the apostate Jewish rulers, it is certain that these special ordinances were performed in other places by the Church in New Testament times.Notes
1. Joseph Fielding Smith (compiler), Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City, Deseret Book Company, 1938, p. 60.2. Ibid., pp. 168, 308.
3. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc., 1955, pp. 164–65.
4. Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, pp. 240–41.
5. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 165, 170.
6. See Hugh Nibley, When the Lights Went Out, Salt Lake City, Deseret Book Co., 1970, pp. 32–88.
7. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 170, 231–34. See also explanation by President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 252.
8. Smith, Ibid., p. 169.
9. Ibid., p. 165.
10. Ibid., p 245.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?a=transcripts/00102.inc 11-11-02
BOYD K. PACKER
President of the twelve apostles, Boyd K. Packer wrote in 1980, “We approach the subject of the temples with deep reverence. The Lord told Moses from the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” [Exodus 3:5 cf. Josh. 5:15].
Packer says, “The work of the temples is transcendent in nature, its prospects so supernal that the mind of man could not have conceived it. Men could not have devised it, for it is above mortal kind. This work and the ordinances central to it came from Deity.”
QUESTION: If these ceremonies are directly from God and they are so vital why do only 25% of Mormons choose to avail themselves of the temple experience?
2. Will you and do you sustain the General Authorities of the Church, and will you live in accordance with the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?
3. Do you have any connection, in sympathy or otherwise, with any of the apostate groups or individuals who are running counter to the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?
4. Are you a full tithe payer?
5. Are you exempt from paying tithes?
6. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?
7. Do you always wear the regulation garments?
8. Will you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church, to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings, and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments, of the Gospel?
9. Have you ever been denied a recommend to any temple? If so, ascertain date of refusal, name of Bishop, Ward, Stake and obtain clearance from previous Bishop before issuing recommend.
10. Have you ever been divorced?
AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BISHOP
From the outside, it is impossible to convey the amount of power the interview process gives the local bishop and stake president over people’s lives. Mormons who struggle with the reality of whether they are going to get into the Celestial Kingdom after death are often asked, “are you worthy of your temple recommend?” If you can answer in the affirmative then everyone smiles. But many Mormons face the reality of being denied access to the temple at key times in their lives. Some will have a period of relative inactivity where they are still very loyal Mormons but they are not as active at this period in their life. If a son or daughter is married in the temple they will be denied access at this very critical time. Usually access is denied because someone drinks coffee or has a cigarette. The grace they receive in the interview process is very monitored only by their local bishop. The bishop, not the stake president asks his questions with the most probing attitude. One problem is that Mormons can not choose which church they join. Boundaries are laid out firmly and families can not switch back and forth.
One problem arises when young people leave the protective nest of their childhood ward and bishop. Young families often get a new job or a new larger home requiring their relocation. At that time issues in their lives the old bishop understood and worked with now become a barrier to temple admittance. Most bishops are chosen because they are either able to deal well with this portion of their duties, but often local bishops are the least prepared to handle these issues. In conservative stakes there is often a culture that denies recommends for even the slightest deviation. Some bishops deny a family access to the temple until they repay back tithes. Many Mormons who have been hurt in this process are members of large families with family members in many wards. At family social events people share about the irregularities between the way local bishops deny temple recommends. [Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980], vii].
WHY DO SO FEW GO TO THE TEMPLE?
Boyd K. Packer says, “But temple opportunities differ in the worldwide Church, and some members presently look