Aaron – The High Priest of the Old Testament Religion of the Mosaic Covenant
Many people wonder why I deal with Judaism as much as I do. For one, they’re not in Christ, but also because Muslims very uncritically use their apologetics. I’ve seen many Muslims share videos from Tovia Singer and Michael Skobac without realizing the implications of quoting these people. I therefore have to deal with them, specifically their apologetics.
If one were to ask an Orthodox Jew what Judaism is, they’d say the religion of the Old Testament with the only deficit being that they currently cannot do the sacrifices due to lack of a Temple. This is very far from the truth. Yes, they cannot do sacrifices which is a huge problem, but there is much else missing from the Old Testament religion. There are also many things done that were unheard of in Biblical times. No Old Testament prophet spoke of an Oral Law, preaching Noahidism to Gentiles, or having a secular state called Israel based on the unbiblical practice of democracy. To be fair, very devout Rabbinic Jews reject the modern democratic state of Israel.
Now, Jews will say that it is Biblical to substitute the sacrifices with prayer. This is a whole debate on its own but lets grant that this is the case for the sake of argument. Let’s look at Leviticus 16 which shows how the Israelites observed Yom Kippur. Obviously sacrifices cannot be done but read the passage. With the exception of verse 29, this whole chapter is for the Priesthood. Verse 29 tells the Israelites that they must fast and abstain from work. That’s it.
All of the atonement is made by the Priests. Now, if prayer replaces the sacrifices, it’s the Priests who are supposed to do it. It doesn’t say that the community is to do a whole bunch of prayers for their atonement. There are no Priests among the modern day Jews and they haven’t had them for almost 2,000 years. Why hasn’t the Priesthood been continued? There is no reason why it had to stop.
The best evidence for this is that the Priesthood didn’t cease during the first exile. If one reads Ezra 2:36-40 we see that the Priests and Levites came out of exile. I emphasize this because if Priests are differentiated from Levites, it shows that ordinations continued during the exile.
For Rabbinic Jews, will Priests and Levites come out of this exile? Maybe some Jewish families can identify themselves as Levite but there are no Priests. There are no descendants of Aaron who were ordained according to the beautiful ceremony laid out in Leviticus 8. Why was the Priesthood discontinued? There was no reason to abolish the Priesthood even if the sacrifices couldn’t be performed as they couldn’t during the first exile.
The answer is simple. The religion today known as Judaism is not the religion of the Mosaic Covenant. It has a few of the externals but none of the internals. The religion that is found in the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures is gone. It exists nowhere on this Earth. The lack of the Priesthood is one of many examples that can be given. The Biblical religion had no reason to bail on the Priesthood. The religion of Jochanan ben Zakkai? Not so much.
Allan, this article is so far off base. I think you would be better to learn from Jews what Judaism is about than try to tell people what Judaism is about.
There are Cohenim who are known with their pedigree in tact. I suggest you contact the Temple Institute for more information on this.
Second, your statement re priests providing atonement is misleading, and reveals you know very little about the sacrifices, or about how atonement is achieved. For example, how did David obtain atonement for his sin with Bathsheba? There are no priests and no sacrifices for this sin. Yet David is pronounced forgiven? The answer is we are forgiven of sin through confession. The sacrifices are for another purpose all together, but unless you can understand that it is the acknowledging of guilt that God cleanses and forgives sin, then talking about sacrifices is way too complicated.
Finally, you oppose the Oral Law, but the Oral Law, as I’ve explained before is necessary to even read Hebrew. I’ve given you a number, and only the milk and meat one you’ve objected to, but even that, you have no valid objection since you can’t tell us whether chet-lamed-vet is fat or milk without the Oral Law. Here’s a few more:
1) Jeremiah 26:20-21
There was also a man prophesying in the name of the L-rd, Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, who prophesied against this city and this land the same things as Jeremiah. King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard about his address, and the king wanted to put him to death. Uriah heard of this and fled in fear, and came to Egypt.
Uriah was scared for his life so he fled to Egypt. However, the Torah says in three separate places [Ex. 14:13; Deut. 17:16, 28:68] that it is forbidden for a Jew to return to Egypt. How did Uriah know that his action was permitted? Even to save his life, how did he know that it is permissible to violate a biblical commandment to save his life if not through an oral tradition?
2) When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity. He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: “If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?… If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?” The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah. How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition?
3) Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted?
I could go on and on. The simple fact is, you would do better learning about Judaism than trying to condemn something you clearly do not understand.
Be blessed in your studies,
David
David, you talked a lot but you didn’t come near to answering the main thesis. Why was the priesthood discontinued? There was no reason to chuck it if Judaism is the religion of the Torah.
“There are Cohenim who are known with their pedigree in tact. I suggest you contact the Temple Institute for more information on this.”
I would challenge anyone claiming this to supply the lineage from Aaron and proof of their ordination according to Biblical standards.
God bless,
Allan
The priesthood was discontinued because the temple was in ruins and an elongated exile spoken of by Hosea 3:4 was in place. It’s not rocket science.
I’m sure the Temple Institute will be anxiously waiting for your inquiry. 🙂
So now you admit that it’s discontinued. At least we’re on the same page now.
My apologies. I meant suspended, not discontinued. Ezekiel describes both the 3rd temple and the sons of Zadok who will be priests. Zech 14 describes that all nations will come to celebrate Sukkot at the Temple and the cooking pots will be full.
So you said that they had it, they discontinued it, now the priesthood is suspended. Why is it suspended and not continued?
I already told you why it is suspended. There is no Temple in operation at which to officiate, thus no priesthood, via Hos 3:4. All of this will be put back into place in the, HaShem willing, near future.
Where does it talk about suspending the priesthood?
Where does it speak of suspending the priesthood? Are you kidding? This is the same semantics based argument you’re attempting on the other thread, and everyone sees through this silliness. No temple = No priesthood. And, as I already posted twice, it’s prophesied in Hos 3:4. I won’t engage is foolishness like this.
No, it’s not prophesied in Hosea 3:4. No temple no priesthood is why priests came out of exile in Ezra 2?
Really? Here’s the text:
Hos 2:4 (Tanakh) 3:4 for Xian Bible: “For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim.”
Did a king also come back from Babylon and rule over Israel? Clearly, this passage speaks of the Roman exile.
What about the people of Judah?
Yes, some of the Jews returned. Has nothing to do with Hos 2:4’s prophesy of no king and no priest for many days. There are no priests because there is no temple. When the temple is restored, the priesthood (and kingship) will be restored.
How do you know that Hosea is talking about both Israel and Judah instead of just Israel. It actually makes fare more sense if it’s talking about Israel only and not Judah because they kept the priesthood until 70 AD(or shortly thereafter). I’m well aware it wasn’t called Judah then but it was the descendants of Judah out of Babylon and there was a priesthood. At the time in 70 AD the people of Israel hadn’t had the priesthood for over half a millennium.
There is no reason to think this is the second exile. It’s the first part of the first exile and only Israel.
The priesthood-temple connection doesn’t work because of Ezra 2 which you haven’t dealt with.
Sorry, I missed this comment.
The answer is found in the text of Hos 2:4. It mentions many days with *NO KING* and no priests. As you mentioned, there was a priesthood when the Jews returned to Judea, but they didn’t have a Davidic king. The time period without a king and without a priest only applies to the current exile.
No, it’s the Israel exile. It has nothing to do with Judah.
The authority has spoken, despite the evidence to the contrary. Got it.
Allan wrote, “No, it’s the Israel exile. It has nothing to do with Judah.”
We Jews understand that House of Israel to be both all encompassing, meaning including the House of Judah, and also specific to the northern Kingdom of Israel. Because of this, we see that Hos 3:4 could apply to the southern kingdom, if the circumstances warranted it because God doesn’t change.
However, Allan’s objection is technically correct that the direct audience was the northern Kingdom of Israel, since Hosea was primarily a prophet to them. So, for argument’s sake, I will assume this prophecy *only* has to do with the northern Kingdom.
Hos 3:4 ““For the children of Israel (northern 10 tribes) shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim.”
When and how will these northern 10 tribes return to God? Or will they? Ezek 37 tells us they absolutely will. How will they return to God? The answer to this is two-fold. First, as I’ve written elsewhere, Deut 30:1-10 provides this answer. Note that the time frame is after all the (Deut 28) curses have come upon them, and that they return by being fully obedient to the Torah *in the exile* during the time they have no priesthood or king, thus it won’t be through sacrifices or rulership (Hos 3:4). Second, the very description of their prosperity is described in Hos 14:4-7(5-8) is spoken of in Deut 30:9. And how does (just the northern Kingdom – for argument’s sake now) return to God?
Hos 14:2 (3) Take devarim (words) with you, and turn to Hashem; say unto Him, Take away avon (iniquity), and receive us graciously that we may render the sacrifices (bulls or vows) of our lips.
Now, we can rehash the Michael Brown argument here, but largely it’s irrelevant because when we combine Deut 30, Ezek 37, Hos 3:4 and Hos 14:2(3), 4-75-8) the prophets are all united on what is required to return to HaShem. It’s not a human/demigod sacrifice, or sacrifices of any kind because sacrifices are forbidden in the exile (where there is not king or priest). What is required is a a vow, promises made through prayers and supplications to be faithful to HaShem’s commandments in the Torah, and to walk those out in obedience, as provided by circumstance.
This is true whether you are of the House of Israel or House of Judah because there is One yud-kay-vav-kay, as the Shema proclaims, and he is not a man, and never changes his mind. Even though Hosea may have directed his message as the backsliding House of Israel, it applies to the House of Judah as well because it’s one message of how to return to HaShem when you’ve fallen. And the message excludes sacrifice, especially of a human demigod that is specifically identified as an abomination to HaShem.
Allan wrote, “No, it’s the Israel exile. It has nothing to do with Judah.”
We Jews understand that House of Israel to be both all encompassing, meaning including the House of Judah, and also specific to the northern Kingdom of Israel. Because of this, we see that Hos 3:4 could apply to the southern kingdom, if the circumstances warranted it because God doesn’t change.
However, Allan’s objection is technically correct that the direct audience was the northern Kingdom of Israel, since Hosea was primarily a prophet to them. So, for argument’s sake, I will assume this prophecy *only* has to do with the northern Kingdom.
Hos 3:4 ““For the children of Israel (northern 10 tribes) shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim.”
When and how will these northern 10 tribes return to God? Or will they? Ezek 37 tells us they absolutely will. How will they return to God? The answer to this is two-fold. First, as I’ve written elsewhere, Deut 30:1-10 provides this answer. Note that the time frame is after all the (Deut 28) curses have come upon them, and that they return by being fully obedient to the Torah *in the exile* during the time they have no priesthood or king, thus it won’t be through sacrifices or rulership (Hos 3:4). Second, the very description of their prosperity is described in Hos 14:4-7(5-8) is spoken of in Deut 30:9. And how does (just the northern Kingdom – for argument’s sake now) return to God?
Hos 14:2 (3) Take devarim (words) with you, and turn to Hashem; say unto Him, Take away avon (iniquity), and receive us graciously that we may render the sacrifices (bulls or vows) of our lips.
Now, we can rehash the Michael Brown argument here, but largely it’s irrelevant because when we combine Deut 30, Ezek 37, Hos 3:4 and Hos 14:2(3), 4-75-8) the prophets are all united on what is required to return to HaShem. It’s not a human/demigod sacrifice, or sacrifices of any kind because sacrifices are forbidden in the exile (where there is not king or priest). What is required is a a vow, promises made through prayers and supplications to be faithful to HaShem’s commandments in the Torah, and to walk those out in obedience, as provided by circumstance.
This is true whether you are of the House of Israel or House of Judah because there is One yud-kay-vav-kay, as the Shema proclaims, and he is not a man, and never changes his mind. Even though Hosea may have directed his message as the backsliding House of Israel, it applies to the House of Judah as well because it’s one message of how to return to HaShem when you’ve fallen. And the message excludes sacrifice, especially of a human demigod that is specifically identified as an abomination to HaShem.
I agree with David. Hasidic jews try to keep the commandments obviously. But the rest claiming to be jews but not practicing, are no longer jews but gentiles.
(Y) Noam Chompsky and Rob Reiner clearly aren’t the subjects under discussion here. 🙂
As Sam Shamoun points out, rabbis like Singer don’t even accept that Messiah will be a flesh and blood human… Let alone Jesus.
Muslims need to use extreme cherry picking and inconsistency in citing his arguments to refute Christianity.
The one thing that I’m waiting for from Muslim apologists is an Islamic critique of Christianity. From my experience, Muslims will just grab anything that can be used against Christianity, accept it uncritically, then hurl it at Christianity hoping it will stick. I’m very careful about the arguments I use against Islam. I can’t say the same for Muslim apologists.
I’m still waiting for a Muslim to quote Surah 5:68 to me as an argument. It was given by Allah to Muhammad to use against the Jews and the Christians. If it was good enough for Allah and Muhammad, you’d think that Muslims wouldn’t hesitate to use it.
The more I study Islam and the Quran, the more I see a divergence between the two.
Scott wrote, “rabbis like Singer don’t even accept that Messiah will be a flesh and blood human.”
This is simply false. The Messiah cannot be The Messiah unless he is descended from King Solomon.