Red Heifer Birth Paves Way For Renewed Temple Service

[Karlysymon]

In both instances, God is addressing the spiritual power behind those kings. It's the same as when Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan," while addressing Peter.

We can pretty easily discern who is actually being addressed by the language that is used in the body of the message. In verse 14, for instance, of Ezekiel 28, God says, "thou art the anointed cherub that covereth," in other words, Satan, and in Isaiah 14, God addresses Satan by name, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" This is pretty easy stuff to figure out.

Any other book can use literary devices. Any person other than God can use figurative language to describe actual things. Why do you and Daciple insist that God and the Bible can't?

The bible is replete with figurative language so how can we insist otherwise? I believe Edom to be a figure for all those who have sold their (spiritual) inheritance, just like "their" progenitor, Esau. (Hebrews 12:16-17). Everyone who has/is trading their eternal inheritance for worldly allurements. Jesus told the Jews that they had Satan for a father because of their actions. There is such a thing as a spiritual father.

 

[phipps]

Red Heifer or Red Herring?

Some are teaching that a perfect red heifer must be born in order to pave the way to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. One organization is even collecting funds to genetically create and raise such a heifer. But what does the Bible tell us about God’s temple?

The Temple Institute is an organization in Jerusalem raising money to prepare for the construction of a new Jewish temple. It is attempting to recreate temple vessels, a high priest’s breastplate, and even musical instruments for a Levitical choir. But they believe that in order to create a so-called state of purity to usher in the coming of the Messiah, the laws of purification found in Leviticus 19 must be followed. These rituals originally involved a red heifer, ashes, and the cleansing of people and objects that have had contact with a dead body.

Christian Zionists, those who encourage the return of Jews to Israel, support the rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem since they believe it is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. One of the early teachers of this doctrine, called dispensationalism, was John Nelson Darby. A literalistic understanding of a new temple is taken from the following:

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, emphasis supplied).

Must a literal temple be rebuilt on the original site of the temple mount in Jerusalem? Does a perfect red heifer need to be sacrificed in order for the Messiah to return to our earth? Will the “man of sin” (the antichrist) sit in a building in Jerusalem in order for “that Day” to come? It sounds plausible to many, but what does the Bible say about a true Israelite and the true temple of God?

The New Testament teaches that the name Israel points no longer points to a nation, but to Jesus Christ and to His followers, and regardless of ethnicity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28, 29). All true Christians are now God’s “spiritual Israel.” In fact, the apostle Paul boldly says, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6).

The devil has misdirected the focus of many from spiritual Israel (God’s church) to the literal building of a temple in Jerusalem. But Christ referred to the temple as His own body in John 2:19–21. In fact, He later prophesied, “See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). What now is the true temple? It is the body of Christ, the church, of which people are made. “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are” (1 Corinthians 3:17; see also Ephesians 2:19–22 and 1 Peter 2:5).

Must a red heifer be sacrificed in a literal temple in Jerusalem for the antichrist to be revealed? In truth the antichrist power will seat itself over the church of God claiming the worship that belongs only to Jesus Christ. Let us turn our eyes away from the earthly Jerusalem below and lift our sights to the heavenly Jerusalem above, “to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speakers better things than that of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22–24)

 

[Thunderian]

There is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I notice you've truncated that verse so your point makes sense.

The full version is as follows:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

​

Using that verse as evidence that there is no longer a physical Israel right now is as ridiculous as using it to prove you are no longer a man.

 

[phipps]

The original sanctuary (temple) and its artifacts, rituals, and sacrificial ceremonies were types or shadows that pointed to the real Messiah and Lamb of God who would come to fulfill, in Himself, all that these things. Of this temple it can be said that it was "the temple of God," in a literal or physical sense.

When Jesus died He put an end to the need for that sanctuary of types and shadows. This is demonstrated in the very events that took place at His death such as the lamb escaping from the altar and the curtain in the temple being torn. This is also seen in the declarations Christ made to the Jewish leaders, especially in light of the fact that they did not want to accept Him as the Messiah and finally decreed His death. He told them, "your house is left unto you desolate." He declared to the disciples that not one stone of the temple would be left upon another (Matthew 23:38; 24:1-2).

In light of these considerations one has to reconsider the statement by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. A newly built temple cannot, in any sense of the word, be called "the temple of God." In fact, the erection of such an temple and the reintroduction of sacrificial rites would be blasphemy against the completed work and present priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

In 1 Chronicles a prophecy is made about the Messiah:

"And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore" (1 Chronicles 17:11-14).

This house that the Messiah would build would be a spiritual house. As head of this spiritual house He would, as High Priest and King, officiate from the true and original temple in heaven–the heavenly sanctuary. That which constituted the earthly temple was fulfilled in primarily a spiritual sense. The following Scriptures adequately demonstrate this point.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

In this text it already becomes apparent that God sees the temple as more than a building of brick or stone. God’s people, in a spiritual sense, are His temple. This can be understood in an individual and collective sense as this next comment by Paul will illustrate:

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (2 Corinthians 6:16).

Here, God’s collective people are described as being a temple of God–the community of the faith. This community of faith or the temple of God are now the present, physical house of God. In their hearts and lives the work of Christ is now made complete through the spirit dwelling within.

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Peter 2:5-6).

These texts clearly illustrate the redundancy of the old temple and its system. God’s people, the Church of Christ, now represent the true spiritual house of God, built upon its true spiritual head, Jesus Christ, the cornerstone. The acceptable sacrifice to God is now a spiritual sacrifice.

When Paul speaks about the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he is talking about the Antichrist power that will rise up within the fellowship of the Christian faith. In fact, he said that in his day already that spirit of the Antichrist was at work.

It would be debatable whether God would even allow another temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Even if it did happen it could not, based on the evidence, be THE "temple of God." The Christian world has been duped by the devil into looking for a man of sin, who is not really the man of sin, in a temple that does not even exist. The reformers always recognized papal Rome as the Antichrist system that rose up within the fellowship of the Christian faith and styled its pontifical head as another god on Earth. This system, according to Daniel 7, Revelation 13, and other prophecies continues until the end of time when Christ will return and put an end to its rule.

This makes it all the more important for us to remember that we as individual members of the body are also the temple of God, bought with the precious blood of Christ. "Let no man deceive you," Paul said. Jesus will not return until there is a falling away first and that man of sin is revealed. May we be true and faithful members of the temple of God, the Israel of Christ, and true spiritual Jews who stand firm in the truth until He finally comes.

Jesus and the apostles are very clear what Israel and the temple is in the New covenant. We know they are not liars and spoke the truth so do we believe the Bible or our doctrines? Let us always choose the word of God which sometimes is going to conflict with what we are taught in our churches. God bless.

 

[elsbet]

Jesus told the Jews that they had Satan for a father because of their actions. There is such a thing as a spiritual father.

Jesus told the Pharisees and scribes that they had satan for a father.

Edit-- I hit post unintentionally.

I was going to say that I dont think that includes the whole of Jewry, so much as those specific, and separate (intentionally so) people. Sorry about that.

 

[Karlysymon]

Jesus told the Pharisees and scribes that they had satan for a father.

Edit-- I hit post unintentionally.

I was going to say that I dont think that includes the whole of Jewry, so much as those specific, and separate (intentionally so) people. Sorry about that.

No problem at all. I was fully aware when i wrote that. That includes all the lay people that wanted Barabbas in exchange for Christ. We simply do our fathers' deeds; whichever father you choose, that is.

 

[TokiEl]

Why is the Temple Mount so important?!

Perhaps?

Right.

That makes sense.


A thought came to me ten days ago when i wrote that the Temple Mount is not the location of the Temple. And that thought was what is spoken of in Isaiah 14 about Lucifer/Heylel/Crescent who would exalt his throne north and above the stars of God on the mount of the congregation.

There on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Chain north and above the former threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite where David saw an angel of the Lord with sword drawn and where he later established an altar to God... where his son Solomon built the Temple.

The Temple was about 600 feet south and a little below the Roman fort Antonia according to the Jewish priest and historian Josephus. And there is the source of the Gihon Springs which water would wash away all the blood from the daily animal sacrifices going on at the Temple.

The Temple was erased by the Romans in 69/70 AD and so fulfilled the words of Jesus that not one stone would be left of it.

So the one whose throne is on the Temple Mount is spoken of in Isaiah 14. And that antagonist is said to will five things as in five pillars of Islam... and there on the Temple Mount he has a throne north and above where the Temple of God was.


Now God broke out of the Temple confinement when Jesus Christ exhaled on the cross. So from that time until today the Temple of God is the Holy spirit filled believers and obeyers of Jesus Christ.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The problem here is that Edomites are of the line of Shem but the majority of believing Christians are currently from the lines of Ham (like my African friends at Church) or Japeth (my own pasty white faced brothers and sisters)!

 

[Daciple]

You're being a simpleton. Of course there can be figurative and allegorical ways of putting things, but that doesn't mean you only deal in those ways of expressing things. I know you know this.

The problem is that instead of reading the Bible as you would read anything else, as a book -- albeit a supernatural one -- that uses all the literary devices we are used to, you take every part that doesn't fit into your predetermined idea of what it's talking about and make it "spiritual". The problem with that is that without clear direction on what is spiritual and what is literal, in passages where you must take some literally and some figuratively for it to make sense in your interpretation, you just kind of wing it. That is no way to read the Bible.

You also show yourself to be a sloppy reader of scripture.

Yes, Jesus did read from Isaiah 61, but he stopped halfway through verse 2, and you quote to the end of verse 3, then ask a lot of really silly questions about things he didn't read that show you're more interested in mocking than you are about expressing the truth.

There it is again, just as I stated... your method of debate is to ignore the points brought up to you, give a base general dismissal and offer little to no rebuttal...

Forgot to add be demeaning about everything as well. I am not being a simpleton, I am showing why your statement about Jesus reading the Bible literally is incorrect. I gave a few examples and of course you dont address the Scriptures I showed. The most obvious is the Stone or Rock, which if we do as you say you do, then we would NOT be looking for Jesus instead we would be looking for a literal rock.

Nothing in that Scripture directly hints that it ought to be read as figurative, but still we know it should be, why? Because Jesus and the Apostles did. They didnt read it as literal and this is what you are saying they always did.

As for Jesus stopping in that Scripture, are you going to tell me that Jesus didnt fulfill the rest of what I quoted?

 

[Karlysymon]

You are, except not of the preferred seed. As a reminder, even if nobody needs one, Abraham begat Ishmael and Isaac; Isaac begat Esau and Jacob, and Esau begat you Edomites.

I sometimes think the Old Testament is, among other things, a collection of short stories about one big, essentially dysfunctional family, characterized by a lot of warring, envious, fratricidal brothers, cousins, etc., which dysfunction is even now grown up, is called geopolitics, and is being played out in the far from neutral US Departments of State, Defense and Treasury. It is, at times, surreal. This is the way the world might end, this is the way the world might end, this is the way the world might end: with both a bang (American-provided nukes) and a moo from a perfect red heifer. I only superficially understand that Edom, in Hebrew, means red, as does Adam, and, though it's a stretch, I wonder if the upcoming Jewish sacrifice of a perfect red heifer doesn't somehow symbolize the ultimate destruction of Edom.

"Quite some time after, a religion [namely, Christianity] appeared the origin of which is traced to him [Jesus Christ] by the descendants of Esau [Edom], albeit it was not the intention of this person [Jesus Christ] to establish a new faith. For he was innocuous to Israel as neither individual nor groups were unsettled in their beliefs because of him, since his inconsistencies were so transparent to every one. Finally he was overpowered and put a stop to by us [Jewish "sages"] when he fell into our hands, and his fate is well known."
"Epistle to Yemen(paragraph iv)"
Moses Maimonides​

Further adding to the confusion is the prophecy to Esau, similar to that of Ishmael (living in hostility towards all his brothers), that he'll live by the sword (Gen 27:39,40). This is important because its always claimed that Arab hostility to Israel is a play out of Ishmael and Isaac. Where does that leave Esau in all this?

(ps; that is, if we are reading the players in the ME today, literally rather than figuratively).

 

[Daciple]

In my opinion, it leaves Esau justifiably and perpetually annoyed that his younger brother, Jacob, also known as Israel, and scheming mother reportedly used the subtlety of the serpent to steal his blessing from their aged, blind father. As for the prophecy, I tend, in this case, to very generally agree with Thomas Paine. Here I assume, for the sake of argument, that the Orthodox Jewish identification of Christianity, all branches and offshoots of it, with either physical or spiritual Esau/Edom might, just might, contain a modicum of truth.

​

"Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword; they had not the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword, than they did so, and the stake and fagot [bundle of sticks with which to burn people to death], too ... Christianity grounds itself originally upon the Bible [Old Testament], and the Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it- not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no converts; they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New] Testament, and both are called the word of God. The Christians read both books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called Christianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that Christianity was not established by the sword."​

Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"​

Well that quote by Thomas Paine is garbage but considering how much he hates God and the Bible it is to be expected. To say that Christianity is or was spread by the sword is nonsense. While the Catholic Church may have murdered off people, it seems that everyone conveniently forgets that the main target of the Catholic Church were Christians who refused to accept their False Religion.

Also to say that the Jews made no converts and butchered all is a gross exaggeration of the Scriptures. I mean do I really have to quote Scripture that tells the Jews to treat the strangers as their own brothers? That anyone can come and convert, and that they took people in all the times, even when they were not supposed to..

It is false to say that Christianity was established by the sword...

 

[TokiEl]

Also to say that the Jews made no converts and butchered all is a gross exaggeration of the Scriptures. I mean do I really have to quote Scripture that tells the Jews to treat the strangers as their own brothers? That anyone can come and convert, and that they took people in all the times, even when they were not supposed to..

I think he is thinking about the conquest of Canaan about 3500 years ago.

And truth be told God commanded the Israelites to go real medieval on the tribes in Canaan. But that was because of the giants. The not exactly humans or freaks of nature... the seed of the serpent.

 

[TokiEl]

I did say that I very generally agree with Paine, and I still do. When Benjamin Disraeli made Protestant Queen Victoria "Empress" of India,

I think you give Victoria too much credit by calling her Christian.

I'm probably more Muslim than she was Protestant.

 

[Serveto]

I think you give Victoria too much credit by calling her Christian.

I'm probably more Muslim than she was Protestant.

My point is that, at the time, England was officially Christian, Protestant at that, and she the reigning monarch. The British Parliament, as I recall having read, then still decided on matters related to the Church of England, which was, at times, a contentious, controversial point that Prime Minister Disraeli's rival, Gladstone (and supporters), raised, intimating that a Jew, such as Disraeli, and though he was officially converted to Anglicanism by way of his father before him, was essentially disqualified to be in such a position.

 

[TokiEl]

My point is that, at the time, England was officially Christian, Protestant at that, and she the reigning monarch. As I perhaps imperfectly recall having read, and that long ago, the British Parliament then still decided on matters related to the Church of England, which was, at times, a contentious, controversial point that Prime Minister Disraeli's rival, Gladstone (and supporters), raised, intimating that a Jew, such as Disraeli, and though he was officially converted to Anglicanism, was essentially disqualified to be in such a position.

The Monarch and the Anglican church and the Aristocracy was and is one big criminal company.

 

[z gharib]

My point is that, at the time, England was officially Christian, Protestant at that, and she the reigning monarch. As I perhaps imperfectly recall having read, and that long ago, the British Parliament then still decided on matters related to the Church of England, which was, at times, a contentious, controversial point that Prime Minister Disraeli's rival, Gladstone (and supporters), raised, intimating that a Jew, such as Disraeli, and though he was officially converted to Anglicanism, was essentially disqualified to be in such a position.

reminds me of,,,,,,,

In the year 1844, Disraeli placed the following words in the mouth of the Jew Sidonia (Coningsby VI. XV.): ‘Since English society has begun to stir and its institutions are threatened by powerful associations, they see the formerly so faithful Jews in the ranks of the revolutionaries... This mysterious diplomacy, which so disturbs the western powers, is organised by Jews and for the greatest part also carried out by them... the monstrous revolution, which is prepared in Germany, and whose effects will be still greater than those of the Reformation, is carried out under the protectorate of the Jews. Leading its preparations and effects in Germany I see a Lithuanian Jew, in the Spanish Senor Mendizabal, I see a Jew from Aragon; in the President of the French Council, Marshal Soult, I recognise the son of a French Jew; in the Prussian minister, Graf Arnim, I see a Jew. As you already see, dear Coningsby, the world is ruled by personages who are very different from those who are regarded as ruling and do not work behind the scenes.’

 

[Serveto]

I think he is thinking about the conquest of Canaan about 3500 years ago.

And truth be told God commanded the Israelites to go real medieval on the tribes in Canaan. But that was because of the giants. The not exactly humans or freaks of nature... the seed of the serpent.

Evidently, in Jesus' time, the genocide of the Canaanites wasn't quite complete because a Canaanite woman, or "woman of Canaan," approached Jesus and impressed him with her faith. There is no mention, as I read it, of her being a giant or giantess.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Evidently, in Jesus' time, the genocide of the Canaanites wasn't quite complete because a Canaanite woman, or "woman of Canaan," approached Jesus and impressed him with her faith. There is no mention, as I read it, of her being a giant or giantess.

Another interesting angle on the woman of Caanan...

Question: "Why did Jesus call the Canaanite woman a dog?"

Answer: In Matthew 15:21–28, Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26). Taken out of context, and especially in English, it’s easy to mistake this for an insult. In the flow of the story, however, it’s clear Jesus is creating a metaphor meant to explain the priorities of His ministry. He is also teaching an important lesson to His disciples.

Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes referred to Gentiles as “dogs.” In Greek, this word is kuon, meaning “wild cur” (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). Non-Jews were considered so unspiritual that even being in their presence could make a person ceremonially unclean (John 18:28). Much of Jesus’ ministry, however, involved turning expectations and prejudices on their heads (Matthew 11:19; John 4:9–10). According to Matthew’s narrative, Jesus left Israel and went into Tyre and Sidon, which was Gentile territory (Matthew 15:21). When the Canaanite woman approached and repeatedly asked for healing, the disciples were annoyed and asked Jesus to send her away (Matthew 15:23).

At this point, Jesus explained His current ministry in a way that both the woman and the watching disciples could understand. At that time, His duty was to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles (Matthew 15:24). Recklessly taking His attention from Israel, in violation of His mission, would be like a father taking food from his children in order to throw it to their pets (Matthews 15:26). The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.

Jesus frequently tested people to prove their intentions, often through response questions or challenges (see John 4:16–18; and 4:50–53). His response to the Canaanite woman is similar. In testing her, Jesus declined her request and explained that she had no legitimate expectation of His help. The woman, however, lived out the principle Jesus Himself taught in the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1–8). Her response proved that she understood fully what Jesus was saying, yet had enough conviction to ask anyway (Matthew 15:27). Jesus acknowledged her faith—calling it “great”—and granted her request (Matthew 15:28).

So, according to both the context and language involved, Jesus wasn’t referring to the Canaanite woman as a “dog,” either directly or indirectly. He wasn’t using an epithet or racial slur but making a point about the priorities He’d been given by God. He was also testing the faith of the woman and teaching an important lesson to His disciples.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

 

[TokiEl]

Evidently, in Jesus' time, the genocide of the Canaanites wasn't quite complete because a Canaanite woman, or "woman of Canaan," approached Jesus and impressed him with her faith. There is no mention, as I read it, of her being a giant or giantess.

When one points to the severity of God during the conquest of Canaan one must also mention the giants in that area. For some reason the Israelites did not destroy all the Canaanites in the West Bank and Gaza... and that proved problematic for them then and today.

 

[Serveto]

When one points to the severity of God during the conquest of Canaan one must also mention the giants in that area. For some reason the Israelites did not destroy all the Canaanites in the West Bank and Gaza... and that proved problematic for them then and today.

Are you implying that Palestinians, including the many Christians among them, are Canaanites, or residue of Canaan, and that they should be finally exterminated to make way for a Jewish ethnocracy? Maybe Jesus should have acted as the IDF and shot and killed that evidently fertile, last of the Canaanite women, who had a sick daughter, instead of befriending her and your and the disciples of the late Meir Kahane's "problem" would be solved.