The End of the Old Mosaic Sacrifices

St.Matt. 27:50-51 recounts Christ's death and at that moment, the Temple veil splitting into.

Verse 50 "And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yeilded up the ghost. 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent."

Evidently there exists today on Mount Calvary a deep cleft about 20 feet wide that experts say could not be the result of a natural earthquake becasue of the way the rocks were split. Had it been an ordinary earthquake the rock would have split at its weakest part, but on the contrary, the rock was rent obliquely, a most unnatural manner.

Here's the answer to the question from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman of Chabad, the most influential Hassidic sect:

And the Torah prescribes a whole slew of sacrifices to be made in the Tabernacle in the desert, and then later in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. And guess what? In our prayers, for the past 2,000 years, weve been asking for G-d to let us rebuild that Temple so that we can start doing those sacrifices, just like He asked us to. 

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2942/jewish/Animal-Sacrifices.htm

Rabbi Freeman is an authority on Judaism and Jewish law.

I don't think it is proper (or honest) to make up stuff about other people's religions.

If you want to know about Judaism, don't ask a Christian who believes that his religion overrides other people's.

But if you insist that that is the proper method, why not have KFC, a Protestant, explain the Roman Catholic faith to everyone?

Oh, and I know many Muslims who have strong opinions about why Christianity is not following G-d's will correctly. After all, Islam came after Christianity and so should have the same authority over Christianity that Lula claims to have over Judaism, right?

We could talk about pre-Muhammed and post-Muhammed Christianity even though Christians don't remember changing anything in their religion at that time.

The Bible text quoted above seems a bit random. It doesn't actually say anything about ending sacrifices and has absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the Second Temple.

In fact the text was written shortly after the construction of the Second Temple. The only relationship it has with sacrifice is that it criticises priests for not doing the sacrifices correctly.

Maybe you should try to be more to the point. Instead of quoting long, irrelevant texts you should simply quote the one or two sentences that say what you claim they say.

Chapter 1:10, 13

Chapter 2:4-6

Malachias not only prophecies that the Old Mosaic sacrifices on the Altar of the Temple would no longer be acceptable to Almighty God, but that a new sacrifice would be more pleasing.

  What follows verse 10,

is verse 11:

The "sacrifice" here is the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the "clean oblation" is the consecrated host, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the "Bread of Life", which Christ described at length in St.John 6 as being His real Body and His real Blood.

1:10 and 2:8 tells us that Almighty God is a little more than critical of the priests for not offering the sacrifices correctly.

1:10, .....I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.

2:8, But you have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law: you have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

The entire chapter is about the priests sacrificing unhealthy animals. That's a big no-no in Jewish law.

Unhealthy (including blind or lame) animals must not be slaughtered for eating.

Since sacrifices were actually eaten by people, the priests were clearly breaking the law. Hence the admonishment.

That happened over 400 years before Jesus' birth and the destruction of the Temple. It doesn't say that sacrifices were abolished or would be one day, it doesn't say that Jews will do something wrong some 500 years later, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or the end of the Second Temple.

The malachias (NOT a proper noun) did not prophecy that sacrifices will end, he speaks about the past, about the very event of the priests starting to sacrifice the wrong animals.

I checked the original text. Everything is in perfect tense. Hebrew has two tenses, perfect and imperfect. (Those are NOT the same as English past tense and future tense.)

Prophecies are said in either imperfect tense ("you will do" = "you shall do" = "you do", Hebrew does not differentiate) or in a surviving Assyrian imperfect tense. The latter is called "waw-consecutive".

The text you quote is in simple Hebrew perfect tense. It is not a prophecy, it speaks about events just passed.

The verb in question is הכשלתם (hikhshaltem). It derives from the root "kashal" which means "fail". It's the h-stem and means "cause to fail", here "you (pl.) caused to fail". All the other verbs are also in perfect tense, as far as I could see.

Ya, prayers in the synagogue to rebuild the Temple to offer the already abrogated sacrifices and levitical laws.

Don't these modern Rabbis read the OT prophets? According to Malachais the priests who were consecrated for the ALtar by competeant authorites who had Divine commission to exercise levitical requirements voided the Levitical covenant.

Instead of praying for the past 2,000 years for the Temple to be rebuilt so that sacrifices can be done again, they should have heeded Moses' command, that they listen to the "Prophet' God would send, whom thou shalt hear". Deut. 18:15.

But the good news is it's not too late to do that!

It helped the last time.

That's where the belief in the Messiah comes from. We believe that one day the Messiah will come and rebuild the Temple, just like the last time.

They do. But they also understand them.

Well, no, not really. By offering unfit sacrifices they _caused to fail_. But I just explained that above. I don't know where you get "voided". The word doesn't even fit grammatically (the verb is in the h-stem and "void" is simply not causative).

Either way, that was 400 years before Jesus' birth. Are you sure that sacrifices ended, per G-d's will, 400 years before Jesus' birth?

You simply ignored my response and explanation and restarted the discussion from a point before you were told. I know you like doing that. But it's still annoying.

No. We prefer praying over following false gods.

A new religion that would require me to give up reading the Bible in Hebrew just so the text can fit in with new interpretations is not for this Jew.

huh?  This is all screwed up.   First you say 2:4-6 and then go on to include up to verse 8 totally skipping context completely.

Then you make it seem as tho you are continuing but you are going back to 1:10 and 1:11 WHICH SCREAMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE QUOTING NOT FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF BUT FROM SOME OFF THE WALL RCC COMMENTARY.  

That is NOT how you put things in context Lula.  You're not making any sense. 

That's why this is so screwed up. 

You totally skipped v 9 which ends the section 2:1-9 but then go back and include Chap 1:10-11. 

Go back and read 2:7-9 and you'd see that one of the principal functions of the Levites was to teach the people (Deut 33:10-scripture interprets scripture) but they were showing partiality or favoritism in applying the law (James 2:1).  Has nothing to do with ending any sacrifices.

This is totally absured Lula. 

oh and one more thing.  Void is NOT the correct interpretation.  Mine says "you have corrupted the covenant of Levi" which makes more sense.  But I understand you would like the "void" because it fits your interpretation best.  You're way off on this Lula. 

The best thing I can show you as to how absurd this is by using scripture to show you:

"And the Jews passover was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem"   John 2:13

"After this, there was a feast of the Jews and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" 5:1

""and the passover a feast of the Jews was near."  6:4

So since this was 400 years after Malachi wrote nothing was voided was it? 

I can go on and on showing you that Jesus himself was present and participating at the feasts of the Jews including going with his family when he was young.

Jesus celebrated the sacrifices.  He was in Jerusalem, as every Jewish male was to be to celebrate Passover.  He also was required to be there for the other two required feasts, Weeks (also known as Pentecost) and Tabernacles.  His mother also went up, as the custom was, to sacrifice in the temple at his birth. 

You got it. "Corrupt" would work, as it is causative. You clearly have a better translation.

KFC,

Nothing I've said is absurd.

Malachias' prophecy 1:10 and 2:8 is clear that the Old Mosaic sacrifices on the Altar of the Temple as well as the other levitical laws would no longer be acceptable to Almighty God and be voided, (or since you don't like that word, abrogated will do).  

As to the timing when Malachias' prophecy that God will not accept offering of the Old Mosaic sacrifices will be fulfilled, all you had to do was read my first sentence in the article.

As to your comments in #10,

obviously all this occurred before Christ's death on the Cross which is when I have consistently  claimed that the Old Mosaic sacrifices as well as the levitical laws, rituals, and ceremonies would end for good at the Death of Our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Malachais' prophecy was fulfilled when God made it known at the moment of Christ's death, the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom. The sacrifices would end being practiced for good in 70AD.

OK. Looking back at my post 4 I can see where it seems confusing. I should have made 2 separate posts.

Leauki asked:

I did that by quoting 1:10-14 and 2:4-8 and highlighting the passages.

In short, Malachias 1:10 and 2:4,8 make my case rebutting Leauki's statement that God didn't make it known that the Old Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.

kfc posts:

Yes, I did quote the prophecy of Malachias 1-4 from the Douay Rheims version.

And again, I'm sorry that post # 4 is confusing.

I went back to 1:10-11 because it pertains to the discussion in that Malachias prophecies the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ, a "clean oblation".

no that has nothing to do with your case.  There are numerous scriptures in the OT where it said without obedience sacrifices were  worthless or condemned for not treating it with respect including what you're referring to here.  It has NOTHING to do with saying or prophesying the Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.  To show you and make my case as well as Leauki's all you have to do is go here:

Without obedience, sacrifices are worthless:

1 Sam 15:22, Prov 21:3, Mark 12:33,

To the Jews condemned for not treating with respect:

1 Sam 2:29, Malachi 1:12, 1:13-14,

condemned for bringing defective and blemished including what you are using for your case:

Malachi 1:13-14

condemned for not offering:

Isa 43:23-24,

Unaccepted because of sin

 Isa 1:11,15, Isa 66:3, Hos 8:13,

Condemned for offering to idols

2 Chron 34:25, Isa 65:3,7, Ezek 20:28,31

I could go on and on.  Malachi is just another in a long list of prophets who were speaking for God about their inferior sacrifices.  Yes, one would come in the future and give a perfect sacrifice.  But Malachi's point has nothing to do with ending the Mosaic sacrifices. 

If anything Malachi was using the ability to startle and shock his audience by saying God was not stuck with the Jews.  God could and would raise up true worshipers to his name from all the nations of the world.  His cause and his great name would succeed despite the corruption of the sacrifices.  God was not saddled with Israel just as he is not saddled with any contemporary group of Christians.  God chose both groups out of mercy and grace to represent Him.  If we didn't Christ said God could call on the rocks to praise Him. 

The sacrifice of the future will be from "the rising to the setting of the sun" showing the sweep of God's success from east to west even beyond the borders of Israel. 

If anything Malachi is speaking about offerings that would be offered bigger and newer than what Israel had ever seen or imagined.  That's why Malachi wrote "My name will be great among the nations." 

That's what Malachi is exclaiming.  Not that the Mosiac sacrifices would come to an end (and they would) but the fact that the sacrifices of the future will be based on something even greater and it would involve Gentile nations from all over the world. 

That's the point of Malachi. 

How long will it take for you to acknowledge my explanation of what the sentences really mean before you give up this new attempt to quote random text to "prove" whatever you want, whether it is even addressed in the text or not?

My statement stands.

You quoted a (bad) translation of a text that doesn't address my statement.

I replied, corrected the translation (and KFC added the version she read which is closer to my translation), and pointed out that the text simply doesn't say what you claim it does.

You have yet to acknowledge my reply.

(I also notice that you proceeded in the other thread as if nothing had happened after you quoted Malachias.)

So, NO, you didn't rebut my statement.

Yes, that's closer.

And post #4 was not confusing but nonsense.

I didn't rely on the quotes presented here, I simply went and read the original text.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/

This helps with translation errors since it has many translations (and the Hebrew text).

Only the Douay Rheims translation uses the word "void". All the other translations use "corrupt" which gives he sentence a much different meaning:

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B39C002.htm#V8

Of course, the verb is still in perfect tense and talks about something that has already happened. Did anybody claim that sacrifices stopped 400 years before Jesus' birth???

So, yes, faulty sacrifices corrupted the covenant. But the chapter says neither that the covenant ended nor does it say anything about what will/shall/is to happen. It ONLY speaks about things that are already done and it doesn't speak of voiding but only of corrupting.

Here's the traditional order of the Hebrew Bible:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

So yes, KFC, Zecheriah is the lat prophet and Malachias is a kind of summary. For a non-Jew you have a good grasp of Jewish scripture. And this was the thing when I pointed out that Lula is not a Jew. Most non-Jews don't get that the "Old Testament" was once a living document and is not a done deal we can simply forget.

I know. It turns out their inferior sacrifices were a big no. no to Almighty God. The Jews were warned by God's prophets over and over and over. Malachias was the last in time...v. 2:8 sums it up. 

The Jews did not keep the Old Mosaic law. Malachias foretold that the rituals and sacrifices of the OC would be rejected and finally voided, abolished, abrogated, take your pick.  Worse, they would bring a curse upon those who obstinately clung to them. St.Paul warned the Jews, "for as many as are under the works of the law, are under a curse."   

Malachias' prophecy was fulfilled with Christ's most perfect sacrifice on the Cross. The beginning of the New Covenant in His BLood meant the end to the priestly practices, rituals, sacrifices of the Old Covenant.  In Hebrews 7:18-19, St.Paul declares, "there is an abrogation of the former commandment (Old Covenant) becasue of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection." "In saying a new, He (Christ) made the former old. ANd that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end." 8:13. They ended for good in 70AD.

Here's the thing....God is not a God of confusion...ever since Christ, there can't be both the Old and the New Covenant in force at the same time. 

In Galatians, St.Paul deals with the early Chruch in their struggle against the "Judiazers" who thought they would combine the practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant with the priestly religion of the New Covenant. This tendency had to be fought becasue the rituals and sacrifices of the Old Law only foreshadowed the coming of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to persist in those rituals would be implicitly to deny that He had come.

From the Douay Rheims version Malachias 1:10

10 Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand."

From the Protestant King James version, Malachi 1:10,

10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for naught; neither do you kindle fire on my altar for naught. I have no pleasure in you says the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand."

Leauki posts:

Whether you agree or not that Malachias is prophecy is beside the point. The fact is Malachias is a prophet...do you understand what God uses His prophets for?

Note that in this verse there are 3 times the word "will" is used.

Here, Malachias is prophecying that Almighty God wants His people to know that (at some future time when this propecy will be fulfilled) 1.--- He has no pleasure in His Aaronic priesthood and 2. that He will not accept their offering.

The time that God lets His people know that He has no pleasure in His Aaronic priesthood is when at the moment of Christ's death, the Temple Veil is rent from top to bottom. And the time that God lets His people know that He will not accept their offering for good is in 70AD when the Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Temple and not a stone was left and burnt Jerusalem down.

So, it would be wise to consider this passage when trying to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so that sacrifices can be offered.

The rebuilding of the Temple may be done, but the Lord of hosts says here He will not accept an offering.

leauki posts:

 lula posts:

 My reply 19 further rebuts your statement. It's Malachias that refutes your statement. Almighty God did make it known that the Old Mosaic sacrifices are done for good.

 .........................................................

 Leauki posts:

 The Douay Rheims version is the most accurate, faithfully translation there is. 

I'll bank my reading of God's Word on St.Jerome's translation....He was a linguistic genius...I'm convinced raised up by God to translate Scripture..St.Jerome was Greek speaking from birth, knew Latin perfectly as well as knew Hebrew and had many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant. He was 1600 years closer to the writings that any of the modern scholars.

 And speaking of faithful translations vs. wierd translations ie KJV....

 and using your link, let's compare the translation of 1:10-11,

 Starting with the DR version.

 Douay Rheims Bible
1:10 Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.

1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

 and the KJV..

 King James Version
1:10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

 "And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name"  I don't know whether to laugh or cry that "Sacrifice" has been changed to "incense".

kfc posts:

Here you are referring to Malachias 1:11, from the King James Version..

1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Really? Is incense the offerings that would be offered bigger and newer than what Isreal had ever seen or imagined?

I note that you start your statement with "If anything..".

Well, Malachias 1:11 is chock full of meaning. Hint: it's not incense, rather he prophecies the sacrifice in the New Covenant..and Melchisedech is back in the picture.

Yes. Do you understand why it is important to listen to them rather than quote them randomly?

Not in the Hebrew. Sorry.

Or rather, there are verbs in imperfect tense (shall/will). But they don't say what you want them to say.

Lastly, as I said before, none of that has anything to do with the end of the Second Temple or Jesus. It's solely about the priests' failure, at that time, to sacrifice the correct sacrifices. That's all the text says.

I really wish you would start quoting relevant texts.

Or, as a step towards that, start quoting better translations. If the translation you choose disagrees with most others, I think you might have a problem. And if you are trying to find truth in the writings of Roman translators and decide to value their words over the original text and the other translations, that is your right. But then you are NOT following the religion of the god of Israel.

Obviously not if it uses the word "void".

Why not.

I spend eight years in high school learning Latin. I'm still not very good at it, but I can use a dictionary.

vos autem recessistis de via et scandalizastis plurimos in lege irritum fecistis pactum Levi dicit Dominus exercituum

You but "went back" from the way and "caused to stumble" many in the law void (neuter) you made the pact (also neuter) of Levi said the lord "of a discrimined body of men"

So this is where you get "void" from. But "irritum" means a few other things as well. This is very interesting. And it's still perfect tense, i,e. not a prediction but a description of what already happened.

So let me put it this way: if you believe that Judaism should have stopped sacrifices 400 years before Jesus' birth because a faulty reading of a bad translation made up by a Roman, that's fine with me.

But it still has nothing to do with Judaism or the Bible.

Call your religion "Jeromism" or whatever you want. It has nothing to do with Judaism.

I'll bank my reading of G-d's Word on the Hebrew text and the Hebrew text says that 400 years before Jesus' birth the priests used the wrong sacrifices and were admonished by a prophet for it. It says nothing more than that.

Ironically, neither does Jerome. It just happens that after "cause to fail" became "void" and a few other things in Latin, it became "void" in the next step.

Do you? 

exactly.  While Malachi was a prophet and did prophecy he also addressed the nation over their sin.  That's also the role of a Prophet.  A Prophet speaks for God to man not only about the future but also about the present and I can give you lots of examples.  Moses was a Prophet.  Nathan was a prophet.  Samuel was a Prophet.  Isaiah was a Prophet. They all spoke correction or rebuke to the present age.  Nathan rebuked David over his sin with Bathsheba.  Moses spoke for God to the people continuously and it wasn't all prophecy.  Most wasn't.  The OT Prophets were continuously pleading with the people to turn from their sin.  They not only dealt with the future but they also dealt with the present.  Same with Christ.  He is a Prophet.  He told many prophecies but he also addressed present sin.  That's what the role of a prophet is.  A Prophet speaks for God to man.

And Lula, just so you know, the incense in the OT was a physical example of the prayers to God.  The incense represented the sacrifice of praise and prayer to God.  Symbolically incense represents prayer...Ps 141:2, Luke 1:10, Rev 5:8, 8:3. 

It sort of is like the Roman Catholics who go up for Communion and then walk right out the door without staying for the prayers or the end of the service.  They did their deed and think that's good enough to make it thru the week.  God sees them.  He's not accepting of that behavior.  God says he doesn't want our sacrifices, he wants our hearts.  It's not about the deed.  It's about the relationship with Him. 

LOL

Jerome used the Greek Septuigint for his translation.  He didn't use the original Hebrew.  While I don't have a big problem with Jerome I do with the ones who came after him and tampered even with his translation.  There was a bishop who came later and fixed some of Jerome's translation to better fit with the tradtions of the RCC and that's where I have a problem.  To me it's no diff than the JW who have their own translation that has sections that don't represent the original language at all but their own.  Again they're taking their will over the word of God making it say what they want it to say. 

The NASB is the closest translation to the original languages (not the DR).  I use the KJV myself but do know there are a few translation errors in the KJV that the NASB does a better job of translating.  Usually my notes pick up any questionable translation error with a better word or meaning.  The KJV is a good translation but the NASB is a better one.