Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions
It is often taught in some Christian circles that the “Court of the Gentiles” in the Second Jewish Temple was merely an instrument of separation of Jews from Gentiles. It is cited as a dividing barrier constructed by Jews, without authorization from G-d as some claim, a wall that was meant to keep non-Jews away from having full access to G-d and from freely worshiping alongside G-d’s people, Israel. Some even go on to link the “wall of hostility” of Ephesians 2:14 to the barrier that separated the area where Gentiles could enter from the rest of the Temple. Furthermore, it’s often taught by many “End-Time” teachers and various online prophecy enthusiasts that G-d will do away with this “Court of the Gentiles” in the rebuilt “Third” Temple. I will attempt to clear up some of these assumptions in this post.
What was the Court of the Gentiles?
Officially, there was no such thing as the “Court of the Gentiles”. That’s right, nowhere in the ancient literature, be it the Bible, the New Testament, the writing of Josephus or in Talmud does one find such a term. Instead, what one finds is an area called the “Outer Court”, by far the largest section of the Temple complex. Although there’s disagreement between scholars on the exact location of various Temple boundaries, this Outer Court was within the Temple grounds, but wasn’t within the Temple area reserved for Jews, which was surrounded by a very low wall/balustrade (sorek) that was only four feet high (so one could see over it), with large openings guarded by Levites. This court was not just for the Gentiles, however – it was open to anyone.
On the other hand, the inner Temple precincts were relatively small and could not contain all the visiting Jews at once (especially during high holy days), so most Jewish worshipers probably ended up in the Outer Court anyway. The sole reason it is known today as the “Court of the Gentiles” was simply because Gentiles could go no farther than this area, while Jews, provided they were ritually pure, could proceed across the balustrade to the next level.
The Temple and degrees of holiness
The Temple was subdivided into five different levels each according to a different degree of holiness, each one greater than the other:
- The Outer Court (i.e. the “Court of Gentiles), accessible to almost everyone.
- The Court of Israelites, reserved for all Jewish males who were ritually pure.
- The Court of Prayer, also known as the Court of Women, not because it was only reserved for women, but because women could proceed no farther. Both men and women could enter this court, talk to priests, pray, observe the proceedings, bring their sacrifices. Women had a balcony built for them to separate them from the men.
- The “Court of the Priests”, where only the priests could enter.
- And the “Holy of Holies”, accessible only once a year by the High Priest.
The various walls (soreks) that divided the various courts in the Temple were not the so called spiritual “wall of hostility” spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 2:14. Were that the case, one may also claim the High Priest was hostile against his fellow priests and Levites, priests were set against the Israelites, and male Israelites were hostile against Jewish women. Instead, the divisions in the Temple simply signified the different levels of holiness. Israelites could not go into the area where priests worked, and priests could not enter the Holy of Holies, where only the High Priest could enter, but no one was intrinsically better than his or her fellow.
Jews and Gentiles both entered the Temple through the Court of the Gentiles
As already noted, the area known as the “Court of the Gentiles” was open to all, Jews and Gentiles, males or females, people of any class. Both Jews and Gentiles would congregate there. In fact, the only exception were women during their menstrual period. Many activities went on in there, including the selling of sacrificial animals, teaching, bathing for purification, even sleeping. No doubt, G-d-fearers/Gentile worshipers (or even just curious non-Jewish visitors) who entered the Court of the Gentiles had a chance to learn from the various Jewish teachers always present in the Temple. They could take in the holiness of the Temple, listen to the singing of Levites, see priests go about their duties, observe the various rituals, or simply pray to G-d and worship.
Yeshua (Jesus) was zealous for the Temple and the Court of the Gentiles in particular
While technically this area was outside of the Temple proper, Jesus appears to have considered the Court of the Gentiles to be part of the Temple. He thought of it as a very holy place. It is there, when driving out the money changers, that Jesus acknowledged the area’s proper use, that is as a place for all the nations to come and worship the G-d of Israel:
And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: “‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations‘? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Mark 11:17)
Jesus was angry that the holiness of the Temple was being violated by unscrupulousness money dealings, cheating and usury. Worshipers would come to the Temple with “pagan” money (i.e. money with images of pagan gods/emperors) to exchange it for the Temple currency which they could then present as a gift to G-d. And even though the Court of the Gentiles was very large, the Gentiles who came to worship G-d and to get a glimpse of the activities that went on in the Temple would find themselves crowded out by the various shops and tables of sellers peddling various items to visitors. One can imagine that this didn’t help get anyone into the proper worshipful mood, probably turned many Gentiles off to the G-d of Israel. Jesus was rightfully angry that the place where Gentiles could worship the Father was being desecrated.
Will there be the Court of the Gentiles in the Third Temple?
Reading the prophet Ezikiel one gets a great sense that the Gentile participation in the Temple would be far greater than it has ever been in Isreal’s history. Truly, the Temple will finally become what it was always meant to be: a house of prayer for all nations. Pilgrims from all around the world will worship there, they will come there during the high holy days, brings their sacrifices and offerings to G-d. Does this mean, however, that there will no longer be the Court of the Gentiles (a.k.a. the Outer Court), as some suppose, or that the different levels of holiness that were always part of the First or the Second Temple be abolished?
The book of Ezekiel spends much time describing the Outer Courts of the new Temple (Eze 40:17-19, 44:19). These courts will again cover by far the largest area of the Temple, to accommodate worshipers from all the nations. Ezekiel 46:23 describes the Outer Court area as having four places of fire for the cooking of sacrifices that worshipers will have brought to offer unto G-d. Nations will stream into Jerusalem and the Temple from all corners of the world to worship the G-d of Israel. Since G-d will never abolish Israel’s election and Temple worship privileges (Romans 9:4), nor will He ever suspend the Temple duties of the Levites or the priests (Jeremiah 33:18), I believe that this means that the various levels of holiness will also remain, including the differing level of holiness between priests, Levites, Israelites and the nations. We get evidence of these continuing different levels of holiness in Ezekiel 44:19:
And when they (priests) go out into the outer court to the people, they shall put off the garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy chambers. And they shall put on other garments, lest they transmit holiness to the people with their garments. (Ezekiel 44:19)
Will the reign of Yeshua as Messiah mean that anyone who truly worships G-d, Jew or Gentile, could finally just waltz into the sanctuary of G-d in the new Temple, have the unfettered access anywhere, even if they are not priests? Does this mean, as some teach, the Gentiles will be selected to work as priests in the new Temple? Not at all!
They [that is "priests, who are Levites and descendants of Zadok" Ezekiel 44:14] alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and perform my service. (Ezekiel 44:15)
Court of the Gentiles in the Book of Revelation
In the Book of Revelation will find an interesting verse that may give us a glimpse into the way the Third Temple will be laid out:
Go and measure the Temple of G-d and the altar, with its worshipers. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. (Revelation 11:2)
Couple of observations: First of all, the angel calls this edifice the “Temple of G-d”, acknowledging its holiness. Secondly, it appears that just as it was the case with Second Temple, the Outer Court area, which will be the largest area of the new Temple, will remain to be reserved for (non-exclusive) Gentile use.
The Temple will be a place where both Jews and Gentiles could worship the G-d of Israel, both together and in unique ways. All nations will come to learn from Israel because they will all know that G-d is with the Jewish people:
This is what the L-rd Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that G-d is with you.’” (Zechariah 8:23)
I really love this, Gene. It answers a lot of the questions I’ve had about the topic and I’m sure it’s much needed by many other Christians/Messianics as well. Great job.
Gene:
You and I usually agree, but in my opinion you have rushed in with preconceptions here.
You fail to explain how the resident alien (ger, stranger) has access to the same altar as the Israelite (Numb 15:14-16, 26, 29).
You fail to explain how the resident alien has an inheritance in Ezekiel’s future holy land (47:22).
You fail to explain how women had access to the altar originally (Lev 12:6).
One can only conclude that the prohibitions on women and non-Jews coming directly the altar, between the altar and the house, in the Second Temple, was an innovation.
And Ezekiel keeps out the foreigner, but not the resident alien (44:9).
“You and I usually agree, but in my opinion you have rushed in with preconceptions here.”
Derek – indeed, we’re usually on the same page. However, I will show you that Judaism has been quite consistent and purposeful.
“You fail to explain how the resident alien (ger, stranger) has access to the same altar as the Israelite (Numb 15:14-16, 26, 29).”
Derek… this is not a problem if one considers the following: it was the priests who would offer up the sacrifices brought in by worshipers:
“Slaughter the Passover lambs, consecrate yourselves and prepare [the lambs] for your fellow countrymen, doing what the L-RD commanded through Moses.”" (2 Chronicles 35:6)
“You fail to explain how the resident alien has an inheritance in Ezekiel’s future holy land (47:22).”
Derek, I didn’t even go into this topic – perhaps it would make another post, but I fail to see how this is applicable to this discussion. That said, I fail to see the direct connection between being given land inheritance in the Land and being given new Temple privileges.
“You fail to explain how women had access to the altar originally (Lev 12:6).”
Again, please read Lev 12:6 closely:
“When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.”
Did you notice that all a woman had to do was to hand the sacrifice to the priest at the entrance of the Tent? Where do you see her going all the way to the altar? She doesn’t – that was the duty of the priest.
“And Ezekiel keeps out the foreigner, but not the resident alien (44:9)”
Derek, I just don’t see where you get this from the above verse. Also, the verse speaks specifically of the sanctuary, not other Temple areas (e.g. the Outer Court).
Thank you, James. I really hope it helps someone understand this topic. I’ve put a lot of legwork into it.
Oh duh. I forgot about the Gentiles offering sacrifices and you already answered this, Gene. Sorry. My brain is still trying to catch up after the Shavuot conference in Wisconsin (which was excellent, by the way). I’m going to be posting something later today and then tomorrow morning I think you’ll be really interested in. It only marginally has to do with your topic here, but I can’t say it’s totally disconnected either.
Gene:
I am super-busy today. I may not have time to go toe to toe with you. Do you think I have not read Leviticus closely? The Conservative Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom is someone I commend to you for your own reading, especially his Lev 1-16 commentary in the Anchor series (don’t start with the one volume commentary by Fortress Press as it is not detailed enough). He explains the verbiage in Leviticus very carefully and with much attention to detail. Also check him on Numbers 15 in the JPS Commentary series. I assure you, brother, you have been hasty in this interpretation. Remember, the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, ran the Second Temple.
“Do you think I have not read Leviticus closely?”
Derek, I am sure you have. That said, there’s always something new to learn, my friend, or some preconceived notion to discard. This is what I am challenging everyone who is reading this post to do.
“I assure you, brother, you have been hasty in this interpretation. ”
Respectfully disagree, but would sure love to be proven wrong on anything I say in my post or comments, when you get the time.
Gene,
You asked the question:
“Does this mean, however, that there will no longer be the Court of the Gentiles (a.k.a. the Outer Court), as some suppose, or that the different levels of holiness that were always part of the First or the Second Temple be abolished?”
And then you gave your answer:
“I believe that this means that the various levels of holiness will also remain, including the differing level of holiness between priests, Levites, Israelites and the nations.”
So this sounds like you agree with the placement of the sign that Josephus spoke of:
“Proceeding across this [the open court] towards the second court of the temple, one found it surrounded by a stone balustrade, three cubits high and of exquisite workmanship; in this at regular intervals stood slabs giving warning, some in Greek, others in Latin characters, of the law of purification, to wit that no foreigner was permitted to enter the holy place, for so the second enclosure of the temple was called.” Josephus (Jos. War 5, v, 2; cf. Jos. War 6, ii, 4; Jos. Antiq. 15. xi, 5; Philo Leg. 212).
Would you say that there should be such a sign in the future Temple of which Ezekiel speaks? i.e. in Ezekiel’s Temple should there be signs placed just before the entrances to the inner courts which warn the gentiles not to enter lest they be executed?
If so, could you explain the rationale behind such a law.
Thanks,
Peter
“Would you say that there should be such a sign in the future Temple of which Ezekiel speaks? i.e. in Ezekiel’s Temple should there be signs placed just before the entrances to the inner courts which warn the gentiles not to enter lest they be executed?”
Peter, do you suppose if a “regular” Jew or even a priest or a Levite (instead of the High Priest) tried to sneak into the Holy of Hollies it would have been well for him? No, he wouldn’t have fared well at all, you must agree. Jews didn’t need a written sign (in Greek and Latin) to warn them where they could and couldn’t enter in the Temple – they were expected to know and observe the different levels of holiness in the Temple.
I don’t know what signs the Third Temple will have, but I fully expect that its holiness will be closely guarded as well, if not more so than it ever was in the past.
Gene,
I’m not talking about the Holy of Holies. There’s the outer court, the inner courts, and then finally the Holy of Holies. My question pertains to the inner courts. Only Israelites (someone from one of the twelve tribes) could enter into the inner courts according to the laws of Second Temple Era Judaism, correct? And according to these same laws, a gentile would be executed who entered the inner courts in violation of the posted warning signs, correct?
Now, you said you have no idea what sort of signs the Third Temple will have. But you’ve already stated that the old levels of holiness will be preserved which means that you at least agree that gentiles will be forbidden from entering the inner courtyards and that all Israelites will be permitted to enter at least as far as the inner courtyards.
My question is this: in regard to Ezekiel’s Temple, what is the rationale for EXCLUDING gentile Believers in Yeshua from the inner courtyard and INCLUDING all ethnic Israelite Believers in Yeshua in the inner courtyard?
Sincerely,
Peter
Actually, I don’t have a problem with areas of the Third Temple being accessible to the tribes and inaccessible to Gentile Christians. We (meaning Gentiles) can still offer sacrifices (I don’t really know exactly which ones in the Messianic Age), worship, and stream into God’s House of Prayer with song in our hearts. As you said Gene, we’ll probably be entering the Temple grounds alongside Jews anyway, sharing our joy in God.
It’s taken me a long time to get to this place, but I believe all this is connected to the relationship (this is just my opinion) between Jews and Christians in the present age. I believe that the primary role of the non-Jewish disciples of the Master is to support and encourage the Torah obedience of the nation of Israel (i.e. the Jewish people) so that Israel can be redeemed and restored and thus bring about the return of the Messiah.
Tearing away Jewish uniqueness just to fit the current state of Christian theology and doctrine only perpetuates supersessionism which hurts not only the Jews but the rest of us. We non-Jews in the Messianic movement are always so concerned about our rights and protecting our turf that we almost universally forget about what’s important to God. The Master said point blank that anyone who exalts themselves will be humbled and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.
I’ll sit at the seat farthest from the bridegroom, or in this case, in the court of the Gentiles, until someone in authority offers me a better seat.
“My question is this: in regard to Ezekiel’s Temple, what is the rationale for EXCLUDING gentile Believers in Yeshua from the inner courtyard and INCLUDING all ethnic Israelite Believers in Yeshua in the inner courtyard? ”
Peter, it is the same rationale that says that only the Jewish priests (kohanim) can enter the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:-1415) but “regular” Jews, even if they are “believers in Yeshua” can’t – different degrees of holiness (not to be confused with “value” in G-d’s eyes). Should “regular” Jews feel slighted because they are excluded from the sanctuary?
“We are all equally holy” line of thinking was used by Korah when he felt slighted that he as a Levite wasn’t granted the same level of holiness as priests:
“You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the L-RD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the L-RD’s assembly?” (Numbers 16:3)
Besides all that, I don’t know if the word “rationale” can even be used here – some things are simply beyond our comprehension.
James,
Derek Leman and myself disagree with Gene here on this particular issue. Does that make Derek Leman guilty of the offenses you just listed? No, I think not. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question that I’ve posed to Gene. There’s nothing in it that suggests Supersessionism (thank you very much).
Cheers,
Peter
Gene,
“Peter, it is the same rationale that says that only the Jewish priests (kohanim) can enter the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:-1415) but “regular” Jews, even if they are “believers in Yeshua” can’t – different degrees of holiness (not to be confused with “value” in G-d’s eyes).”
So your argument is based on function. You’re saying that just as the priests were segregated in order to fulfill their function in the sanctuary, the Israelites must be segregated to fulfill their function in the inner courtyard and that, by implication, this is a function which does not apply to the gentile Yeshua-Believers. Do I understand you correctly so far?
Would you agree that the kohanim had to be holy because of their function? Or do you feel that their function had NOTHING to do with their holiness?
Sincerely,
Peter
“So your argument is based on function.”
Peter, not at all – it’s based on degrees of holiness as assigned by G-d or as affected by a temporary ritual impurity.
Yeshua is our High Priest not because of His function – but because G-d has elevated him above all.
As a “regular” Jew, my degree of holiness is below that of Levite or a Priest and I will not be allowed to serve in the sanctuary. I am totally OK with that, and as much as I would have loved to be either a Kohen or a Levite, I don’t feel that they are better than me or more loved by G-d.
Derek Leman and myself disagree with Gene here on this particular issue. Does that make Derek Leman guilty of the offenses you just listed? No, I think not. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question that I’ve posed to Gene. There’s nothing in it that suggests Supersessionism (thank you very much).
Peter, I was speaking in a much broader scope and just using Gene’s topic as a springboard. All I’m really asking is for people to stop and consider that Jewish uniqueness may not end with the construction of the Third Temple. Having recently returned from a Shavuot conference, one of the things I’ve been considering is how some non-Jews in the movement seem rather focused on how God’s plan impacts them personally (in terms of the various mitzvot) rather than considering what we may have to accept in order to be part of God’s plan.
Not that you or Derek are supersessionists, but there are people in the Messianic blogosphere (as we all well know) who struggle a great deal with the uniqueness of Israel’s role relative to the larger population of non-Jewish Messianic disciples. It’s within that context that I say I have no problem with there being a court of the Gentiles. If I’m wrong and God intends to give Gentile Messianics (that is, Christians) greater access to the Temple, then I will be pleasantly surprised.
“If I’m wrong and God intends to give Gentile Messianics (that is, Christians) greater access to the Temple, then I will be pleasantly surprised.”
James, I wouldn’t mind one bit either (who am I to mind?), if this is what G-d intends to do. I think G-d has already done an amazing work among the nations.
James, I wouldn’t mind one bit either (who am I to mind?), if this is what G-d intends to do. I think G-d has already done an amazing work among the nations.
One of the presenters at the conference was a brilliant, young Jewish woman who spoke of how we non-Jews can be “the crown jewels of the nations” in fulfilling our role of holiness in relation to national Israel. If we (that is, non-Jews) are able to make a paradigm shift away from our personal “rights” and desires and toward our own unique and vital role in God’s plan for us and Israel, I think we would stop being jealous of the Jews and really enjoy who we are and how God has blessed us all.
I’ll start making that point more explicit a little later today and then tomorrow morning on my own blog (unabashed plug).
Gene,
Your assertion that the kohanim’s holiness has “not at all” to do with their function is, frankly, surprising. It seems that their holiness is DIRECTLY related to their particular function. For without their function what need would there be to keep them holy? The reason why this idea of functional holiness is important is because there does not appear to be any functional differentiation between ethnic Israelites (non-kohanim and non-Levite) and ethnic gentiles. Thus, if there’s no functional differentiation then there’s no need for differing degrees of holiness.
Would anyone out there like to chime in on Gene’s assertion that function has nothing to do with holiness in the Temple?
Sincerely,
Peter
James,
I feel that it is inappropriate to equate standing up for one’s rights with arrogance or jealousy. I’m quite sure that Yeshua will not mind it if you exhibit a modicum of self-respect. And understand that He is the holder of ALL rights which means that the only “right” that you have is to do what He commands you. Thus, if you let someone take your rights then you are letting them interfere with G-d’s will for your life. So don’t equate standing up for rights with arrogance or jealousy.
Sincerely,
Peter
“Your assertion that the kohanim’s holiness has “not at all” to do with their function is, frankly, surprising. It seems that their holiness is DIRECTLY related to their particular function. ”
My argument is not based on function, but on Israel’s election (and sub-elections within Israel itself). Israel was elected and was made holy (set apart) because G-d loved Israel, not simply as a tool to perform a function.
I’m not personalizing this Peter and I’m not telling you what to do. I’m addressing the general Gentile involvement in the Messianic movement and behaviors I’ve witnessed with my own eyes over the years. Some Gentiles are jealous of Jewish uniqueness and for them, that’s a large part of their motivation to be “obligated” to the mitzvot, as opposed to voluntarily accepting additional commandments upon themselves as a matter of personal choice.
I know very little about you and your life (the blogosphere is a poor transmitter of relationship) so I have no idea how you see your role in terms of Judaism and in terms of God. We all negotiate our own relationship with our Creator and I’m sure you are doing your very best in your walk of faith as am I.
From my point of view, and I’ll apply this just to me, I don’t see my “rights” as the primary element in my relationship with God. If I choose a path that I recognize as humility in relation to God and the teachings of the Master, and accept a more subdued role as I understand God’s plan for me, it shouldn’t affect you at all as an individual personality.
Expanding my viewpoint back out into Messianic Judaism as we understand it in the largest possible scope, I have seen trends among some of the non-Jewish members that I find disturbing. I can compel change on no one in these comments or in any other online or personal venue. That’s not my goal. However, I believe it’s important for alternative perspectives to be presented so that people who are seeking information have multiple options to consider. I’m just trying to present one of those options. Readers in the blogosphere will decide as they will.
One day, God will make His desires explicit and unmistakable through the Messiah. One day we will not only believe…through Messiah, we will know. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. This isn’t a contest of wills to see who can be “right” all the time. It’s a journey of discovery.
Gene,
“Israel was elected and was made holy (set apart) because G-d loved Israel, not simply as a tool to perform a function.”
So there is a function, yes? And so what is that specific Temple function as it relates to non-kohanim, non-Levite, ethnic Israelites?
Sincerely,
Peter
James,
“I’m not personalizing this Peter…”
No, you’re just crying “Supersessionism!” each time someone disagrees with Gene and then claiming that it was just a general comment not to be taken in context with the current conversation.
Cheers,
Peter
Of course it’s to be taken in the context of the conversation. You just have a choice to take it personally or not. I assure you that when I wrote those comments, I did not have you in mind.
I’ve been reminded recently that when discussions degrade into arguments on the web, nothing is accomplished. No minds are changed. No hearts are turned to God. If you don’t like what I’m saying, I’ll leave the conversation in this comment stream since in antagonizing you, I’ve failed to say what I believe needs to be said in a productive manner.
Peace.
“And so what is that specific Temple function as it relates to non-kohanim, non-Levite, ethnic Israelites?”
Just as it was in the Second Temple – Jews performed various Jewish rituals, prayers and sacrifices as required of them by Torah, a service unto G-d. Israel as a whole was and is to be the Nation of Priests (Exodus 19:6), priests unto G-d. As priests, Jews represent all the nations of the world before G-d. So, in this way, their separateness within the Temple reflects this, no less than the separateness of kohanim reflects their own level of holiness, even as they in turn represent Israel before G-d.
“If you don’t like what I’m saying, I’ll leave the conversation in this comment stream since in antagonizing you, I’ve failed to say what I believe needs to be said in a productive manner.”
James, don’t ever feel like you need to exit. I think you’ve been very gracious, even with those you disagree.
Gene, I feel honor bound to keep my word, but I will post just one last time here to provide a link to my new blog post which I feel is at least somewhat relevant to the conversation: Redeeming the Heart of Israel, Part 1. Let me know what you think.
Gene,
“Jews performed various Jewish rituals, prayers and sacrifices as required of them by Torah, a service unto G-d.”
And now to the question to which we’ve slowly been journeying:
In Torah, which of these inner court rituals were expressly forbidden to the gentiles? i.e. what rituals were so exclusively Jewish as to imply the full exclusion of all gentiles from the inner court?
Sincerely,
Peter
“In Torah, which of these inner court rituals were expressly forbidden to the gentiles? i.e. what rituals were so exclusively Jewish as to imply the full exclusion of all gentiles from the inner court?”
Bringing the Passover lambs to be sacrificed. How’s that for an obvious start, Peter?
“And Ezekiel keeps out the foreigner, but not the resident alien (44:9).”
Derek, if I understand you correctly, you say that a Gentile “believer in Yeshua” who happens to not be a “resident alien” is excluded from the inner Courts (according your reading of Ezekiel 44:9), but one who does reside in Israel is included?
Gene,
That’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Gentiles were forbidden to eat the Passover lamb. Do you feel that this continues under the New Covenant in which Yeshua has become THE Passover Lamb? What would be the Theological implications of forbidding gentiles in the New Covenant from partaking in the Passover Lamb? And if one had access to the true Lamb then why prohibit one from the symbolic lamb? It is self-evident that when the covenant changes there must be a correlative change to Torah. For example: Yeshua has become high priest after the order of Melchizedek. What happens to the old laws regarding the high priest? Have they not become obsolete? Would you attempt to regulate Yeshua based on regulations for a kohenic priest? No, of course not. Because there has been a marked change which brings about a corresponding change in the Torah. This would naturally be problematic were it not for the fact that there are justifications for these changes in Torah itself.
In conclusion, just as you wouldn’t prohibit Yeshua from fulfilling His priestly duties because He did not follow the old regulations for a High Priest, you wouldn’t prohibit a gentile from participating in the Passover lamb when it is manifestly evident that all gentiles already have access to the true Passover Lamb. G-d did not always call the gentiles clean. But the New Testament shows that there has been a new call, one foretold by prophecy (e.g. Amos 9), that the gentiles would be “called” and would become clean members of G-d’s people. This represents a change in the covenant and since covenant is synonymous with Torah this brings about a change in the Torah:
“27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our LAW for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”
Note that the Greek words there for “impure” and “unclean” include a term reserved for matters of ritual purity. Something NEW had happened in which the gentiles were being declared RITUALLY pure. How can the Torah be changed like this? Because the covenant changed (for the better).
Sincerely,
Peter
“Something NEW had happened in which the gentiles were being declared RITUALLY pure.”
Peter, the change in Gentile condition through Yeshua was not about ritual purity and it certainly wasn’t about Gentiles becoming virtually Jewish and “One-Law”. That’s not what Yeshua is about. Otherwise, how does one explain the fact that worshipers will still be in need of ritual purification in the Third Temple? You are arguing from a wrong angle here.
Gene,
Derek touched on this when he said something to the effect that John’s Baptism was new in the sense that it was a purification that was done once and for all. In contrast, other aspects of Jewish ritual purification remain time-sensitive. Perhaps he will comment on that.
But apart from ritual purity is the fact that Paul tells the gentiles in Corinth that Yeshua has become the Passover Lamb. Thus, it would make no sense do exclude gentiles from the inner Temple courts on the basis that they cannot partake in the Passover lamb. It is highly unlikely that the source of our kinship would become a source of exclusion.
Sincerely,
Peter
“Thus, it would make no sense do exclude gentiles from the inner Temple courts on the basis that they cannot partake in the Passover lamb. It is highly unlikely that the source of our kinship would become a source of exclusion.”
As I already explained, it’s no more about exclusion than “regular” Jews being excluded from the sanctuary area while priests and Levites allowed in.
BTW, some (including my friend Derek) go so far as to believe that Gentiles will serve as priests and Levites alongside Jewish priests and Levites. They base it on Isaiah 66:20-21 (although I found no Jewish source that interprets those verses in that way). Not sure how they (and Derek) reconcile this with Ezekiel 44:15 or the rest of the scriptures.
Which means, Peter, the fact that all you’re asking is for Gentiles to just be equal with the “regular” Israelites when it comes to Temple access, you are being quite modest and conservative!
Gene,
You wrote: “Otherwise, how does one explain the fact that worshipers will still be in need of ritual purification in the Third Temple? You are arguing from a wrong angle here.”
I checked Misnah Yoma Chapter III today and found this:
“No one may enter the forecourt [even of Israelites, not priests] to do service, EVEN WHEN HE IS CLEAN, before he has bathed.” **emphasis added**
So it WAS possible to be BOTH ritually pure AND in need of ritual purification (as strange as that might sound). This implies that the mikvot discovered at the base of the Temple mount were probably for people who were already clean and that they needed an extra-purification in order to enter the Temple.
What do you think of that?
Sincerely,
Peter
“So it WAS possible to be BOTH ritually pure AND in need of ritual purification (as strange as that might sound). This implies that the mikvot discovered at the base of the Temple mount were probably for people who were already clean and that they needed an extra-purification in order to enter the Temple. ”
Peter, I would not be surprised is this was done as an extra precaution – that is not to take people at their word [that they indeed already purified themselves before coming here], or in case they became impure on their way to the Temple, lest they defile the Temple. Thanks for sharing.
Gene,
But keep in mind that it says even one who is CLEAN (i.e. ritually pure) must be CLEANED (i.e. ritually purified) before entering the Temple. This means that it’s not just about taking a precaution in the event that someone was accidentally unclean–this is saying something more than that. This is saying that the Temple requires an EXTRA level of purity beyond the normal ritual purity inherent to an Israelite. Do you understand?
Sincerely,
Peter
“This is saying that the Temple requires an EXTRA level of purity beyond the normal ritual purity inherent to an Israelite?”
Yes, that’s quite possible (assuming that’s what that passage in Mishnah meant to convey). Beyond this, what is the point you are trying to make, Peter?
Gene,
My point was simply that if the gentiles have entered a state of ritual purity (Acts 10:27-28) and it was only the ritually pure who were required to undergo immersion prior to entering the Temple then it follows that the gentiles may have attained a status under the new covenant which obligates them to undergo tevilah prior to entering Ezekiel’s Temple.
Sincerely,
Peter
“Acts 10:27-28″
This has nothing to do with ritual purity as pertaining to Jewish laws of purity. G-d simply told Peter not to call ANYONE, ANY PERSON impure or unclean. This would by default include all the Gentiles he came across, including those who were still worshiping in pagan temples and knew nothing of Yeshua (since most did not at that point). This was about Gentiles’ worth as human beings in eyes of G-d.
Gene,
If it was the case that ALL people (not just the Believers in Yeshua) were clean then tell me why James (of the Jerusalem Council) says in Acts 15:20 that the gentile Believers need to “apechesthai ton alisgematon” (“abstain from the pollutions..”)? Logically, one who is ritually impure need not worry about becoming ritually impure. It is only those who are ritually pure that need to worry about possible defilement–just as the ancient Israelites had to worry about the possibility of defiling themselves through idolatry. Check this out:
“The term [alisgemata] refers as Bruce says to ‘pollutions resulting from contact with idol worship,’ not merely to some kind of uncleanness incurred from eating meat bought in the marketplace but originally sacrificed in the temple. Especially instructive at this point is Mal. 1:7 (LXX) where the term refers to polluted food offered on altars. In fact the term [eidolothuton] does not even arise in this first giving of the decree, but only at 15:29 for the first time.” pg 462 of The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III.
Sincerely,
Peter
To clarify:
So, in other words, one can’t say that ALL people were clean because many gentiles were continually defiling themselves with idolatry. And, apparently, this could create problems of “pollution” or ritual defilement for even Believers if they participated in idolatry. So even a Believer could become unclean. If this were not the case then why did James (the Jerusalem elder) bring it up as important?
Sincerely,
Peter
“If this were not the case then why did James (the Jerusalem elder) bring it up as important?”
Whatever he meant by it, he certainly did not mean it in regard to ritual impurity required for entrance intro the Temple, specifically. It think that he was speaking in a spiritual sense – “stay away from idols!”.
Paul wasn’t concerned with ritual pollution from food offered to idols, purchased and eaten by his Gentile disciples, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (something that would be forbidden to a Jew as it would make him impure). His only concern for them was with their state of conscience and stumbling others. This is because Paul wouldn’t even think about bringing Gentiles into the inner court of the Temple (remember that false accusation against him?).
Gene,
You and I agree that Paul was Torah-observant. It’s important for us and everyone else in Messianic Judaism to know how to defend this premise. However, you may have unwittingly made the contextual aspect of the case for a Torah-less Paul by stating that “Paul wasn’t concerned with ritual pollution from food offered to idols.” Fortunately, Rudolph devotes a large section of his doctoral thesis “A Jew to the Jews” to this sub-topic. I hope you’ll allow me to quote a rather large portion from this work which summarizes the reasons for the conclusion that Paul did NOT have a permissive stance on food offered to idols. If you feel like you need to delete this comment for being too long then I understand. But I hope you’ll at least read it because it is very apropos to our discussion.
In the following quote, note how Rudolph counters the Christian notion that Paul held a permissive stance on idol-food and exhibited disdain for the Apostolic Decree:
“Summary and Conclusion…This chapter addressed the contextual argument given by scholars for why 1 Cor 9:19-23 precludes a Torah-observant Paul. It was shown that it is an overstatement to say that Paul held a permissive stance on idol-food that burst the bounds of Second Temple Judaism. Paul’s position on idol-food was two-fold: (1) Jesus-believers were not to eat food in a pagan cultic context; and (2) Outside of a pagan cultic context, indeterminate food was permitted, while known idol-food was forbidden. Paul’s approach to idol-food was consistent with the apostolic decree, but it was a more contextualized application of the principle. When the 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 pericope and its background are examined for evidence of Jewish influence, it becomes apparent that Paul’s perspective on idol-food is informed by Jewish thought. First, Paul refers to passages in Israel’s Scriptures that condemn idolatry. Second, the formulation of Paul’s stance on idol-food resembles biblical case law. Third, Paul’s approach is not as original or un-Jewish as scholars typically assume. Contrary to Barrett and Fee, there is no evidence that all Jews avoided macellum food. Fourth, the principle of lowering the bar with respect to indeterminate (or even forbidden foods) due to overriding circumstances is attested in later Jewish literature. Paul may have considered his stance on indeterminate food a necessary adaptation given the unique circumstances of the Gentile believers. Fifth, some Jews in Corinth may have regarded sold objects to be ‘non-sacral’ in status. This would have mitigated the problem of eating indeterminate food from the macellum. The early rabbis adopted a similar approach by focusing on the question of idolatrous or non-idolatrous intention. Sixth, Paul’s ethic of not causing the weaker brother to stumble…is probably rooted in Jewish ethical categories of thought and legal tradition surrounding Lev 19. All of these points problematise the contextual argument behind the traditional view that 1 Cor 9:19-23 precludes a Torah-observant Paul. A compelling case can be made that Paul worked within the Jewish contours of flexibility to respond to the issue of idol-food in Corinth.” pgs 108-109 Rudolph’s “A Jew to the Jews”
Peter,
Paul’s advice to his Gentile disciples was to eat food bought in the market without examining it / asking sellers where it came from, “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
Do you think he would tell his Jewish audience to do likewise? When Rudolph makes a claim that “there is no evidence that ALL (emphasis mine) Jews avoided macellum [market] food”, I can believe it (knowing that Jews must have ranged then as now from scrupulously observant to almost non-observant). What I don’t believe is that a Jew like Paul the Pharisee, who claimed to be belonging to the strictest sect of Judaism, would himself buy food on the market from idolaters (as most Gentiles in his days were) without asking questions. Not a chance. Clearly then, Paul did not apply the same standard of ritual purity to his Gentile audience. This is very consistent with the rest of his writings. Yes, Gentiles were to avoid food sacrificed to idols, but in no way does this basic prohibition approach the complex ritual purity standards required of Jews.
Gene,
Corinth was a mixed congregation of Jews and gentiles.
” Gene, Corinth was a mixed congregation of Jews and gentiles.”
Peter, my friend, sometimes you make claims (such as one above) that make me want to do a facepalm.
“You know that when you were heathens (Gentiles/pagans/idol-worshipers), somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.” (1 Corinthians 12:2)
Gene,
Are you not aware of Acts 18 which explains who the people were who founded the “church” at Corinth? They were leaders of the Jewish establishment at Corinth. Do you not think they had some influence in the development of the congregation there? Also, observe 1 Cor 7:18 which gives instructions to the circumcised Corinthians to not attempt to uncircumcise themselves.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, 1 Corinthians 12:2. Read it again to whom the apostle has addressed the epistle. He’s not teaching Jews about “mute idols”.
“Also, observe 1 Cor 7:18 which gives instructions to the circumcised Corinthians to not attempt to uncircumcise themselves.”
He’s speaking in general terms here (making a point), while in 1 Corinthians 12:2 he speaks directly to his audience (“you know”, “you were heathens”, “you were influenced”). Huge difference.
Failure to distinguish a Jewish audience from a Gentile audience in various NT writings has been one of the main causes of antinomianism in Christianity and Supersessionism in One-Law “messianic” groups.
Gene,
It seems like you’re ignoring the context: Acts 18 proves that the core of the Corinthian congregation was Jewish. Add to that the evidence that there were gentiles at the Corinthian congregation and, presto, you’ve got a mixed congregation.
Gene,
Here’s some additional logic for you to consider: does the fact that 1 Corinthians is primarily addressed to gentiles PROVE that the congregation at Corinth is comprised only of gentiles? No, of course not. Because that would not be logical. However, that’s precisely the argument you are trying to make. What you SHOULD be doing is looking at the context–especially the historical and intertextual context–in order to determine whether Corinth was a mixed congregation. Don’t fixate on the text to the exclusion of the context.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, you don’t know what the ratio of Jews to Gentiles in Corinthian congregation was (hint: Corinth was a Gentile city outside of Israel). Let’s say for the sake of argument that there were indeed a few Jews in that congregation among the great majority of Gentile members (as the targeted audience in Paul’s letters to Corinthians indicate) – it still doesn’t make this a “mixed” congregation, no more than a few Germans in a Korean church would make it a “mixed” congregation (or especially a German one).
I would also like to note that many of the modern so called Messianic “Jewish” congregations that have only a smattering of a few token Jews in them are also NOT mixed or Jewish, no matter how they would like to present themselves.
Hey Gene. Shalom and congratulations on your article. Exceptionally written and researched. May Hashem bless works of your hands. Just on another note, amazed to amount of strange comments that it produced. I guess because of the topic. No time to comment on everything but last your comment particular good. Just reflection on condition of those “messianics” No wonder all this messianic thing not working. “no matter how they would like to present themselves.” Excellent and so true. Keep up good work and not spend too much time on answering comments. When it works it works but when it not works it not works. So may be one day there will be some light in them. Baruch Hashem.
Thank you, Eli, for your kind words.
James seems to want all gentiles to go back into mainline Christianity. I simply feel (and so does my girlfriend) that we could never conceivably return to such a place knowing what we now know and having experienced what we have now experienced. But “simply feeling” is only enough for Liberals. I concede that.
On the other end of the spectrum, folks like Asher Meza spur Noahides to convert simply because his Noahide friends complain that Noahidism is totally boring and completely bleak, aimlessly disconnected from the faith of Israel. Does nobody find it odd that Noahides in the Jewish world share the same complaint as their equivalent Torah-Aware Gentiles in MJ? There’s only seven exigetically-derived laws underpinning every church on the planet. The rest seems like made-up localism that G-d does not deem a sin to ignore.
Challenge:
1. Can any gentiles here name which of the 70 nations they are?
2. Can you tell me what unique role G-d has appointed for that specific nation (such that losing that identity and role would be a sin?)
3. The first person to achieve this feat I will purchase pork ribs and beer. This offer should ward off Ishmaelites claiming that they are the “kicking donkey” if their prize is a meat barred by his prophet. I want to keep the field open to all of you. :)
I can see the argument that gentiles have salvation in Messiah, but where you get that they have an identity I still have no idea. Maybe gentiles had an identity when they were worshiping false gods, had their own temples, a calendar they were commanded by their false gods to adhere to, feasts and sacred games, or sacred hunts that they had to keep for a good harvest, covenants that their deities made with them (like that of Mars with Romulus to found Rome). It seems when they enter the messianic kingdom they lose their identities and are issued seven uniform laws like everyone else, which apply to Jew and Gentile alike. Identity?
The rise of Christianity did so much to wipe out diversity and homogenize the world, as well as turn previous commandments from paganism into optionalized and softened customs. I wonder how Jews would react to their commandments being optionalized? You would see it as a step to assimilation and loss of identity.
Where is “gentile identity?”
Just my thoughts,
-The Drake
“…and close your eyes with holy dread,
for he on honeydew hath fed,
and drunk the milk of paradise.”
-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
@Drake
1. I’m a Ukrainian, that is said to be from the Scythians – a nation remarked of in Colossians 3:11
2. As per Colossians 3:11, if a Scythian, a “savage” of the goyim (I’ve seen it translated as such in other versions), can be a part of the body Messiah – a part of G-d’s chosen people (see v12), it goes to show how great the mercy of G-d is. Though the Ukrainians have been a part of some evil acts since their mass conversion, G-d has still been gracious, merciful, and forgiving to those who actually have trust/faith in Him. Now, we dance, sing, write poems, create art to reflect His glory – and sometimes we drink too much!
3. I’ll have beef ribs and a Heineken : )
Oo-oo, make that a rack of lamb and a nice red wine!
Almost, Marko,
You skipped a proviso.
Can you tell me what unique role G-d has appointed for that specific nation…
>>>>>>such that losing that identity and role would be a sin?<<<<<<
Where are you sinning if you drop your identity and, let's say, you Americanize?
Point to the Bible and show me where you are sinning by giving that up.
Could you say to a Scythian child: "this is your holy way, which is different than the 70 other nations, and is a sin if you abandon? It is not optional for you to keep them, lest you forget them."
I tried it with Ireland already. It does not work. :-)
Also. The agreement is for pork. Jews have all the aforementioned spelled out for them.
The challenge continues…
-Drake
I mean, it’s an honor system. The best I can do is wire someone the monetary value of pork ribs and a beer if you show me a rib menu. You could technically spend it to fill your tank with gas. But I am trusting a person who believes in an explicit gentile identity has no qualms with pork and would keep their word on eating it.
Gene:
If attending certain feasts with a more limited participation is required for Gentiles in the Messianic Age, lest they get no rain…and G-d’s presence is literally there…
Would a Gentile be able to go remain in the courts having eaten pork and refused mikveh? What if they had touched a corpse? If they are in a state of conferring tumah, what then?
If keeping a very limited biblical feast is mandated in the Messianic Age for Gentiles, it seems as if kashrut, purity, and perhaps ashes of the heifer would apply to them while they were vacationing in Stone City.
Also, the pilgrim feasts are sabbaths, right? And they are all timed around sabbaths, yes? So a Gentile would have to rearrange himself to a sabbath calendar?
If that is the case, then Gentiles would be mandated to keep more of the Torah. Right?
Imagine Marko wins my bet (good luck) and he comes into the courts with swine goobers all over himself. :)
Drake,
Just wanted to make sure I understood you—are you making the argument that gentiles have no identity when they become Believers in Yeshua? If that’s your claim that’s fine, I just wanted to make sure I understood you.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter,
I don’t deny they have salvation…I just see nothing that points to an explicit identity. You yourself spoke in terms of a “function.” I say this assuming that B.E. is true.
Comparison of Gentiles who want to keep Torah to “Korah’s Rebellion,” as sometimes is bandied in MJ circles, does not add up for me. Korah was a Levite and was given explicit functions under Kohath, as well as all the other members of the outside tribes who sided with him (Reuven I think). Each tribe outside was given its camp, land, blessings, curses, and functions. Conversely, I see nothing in the Bible that distinguishes one gentile race of men from another. There seems to be no command or kingdom function G-d gives to Javan that separates him from Gog, for example. A Greek Orthodox who forgets his customs and becomes American is not sinning as long as he keeps Noah.
I guess the wheat harvest metaphor in Psalm 67 is apt. One kernel looks like another kernel. Then again I could be way off base and not know what the heck I’m talking about. Happens all the time. :)
Perhaps a Gibeonite could present himself to win my bet (if they still exist as a people), as long as he assents that he is a woodcutter and a water-carrier. That makes at least one nation distinct in the Kingdom from the rest of the nations. But that’s one city, not an actual nation, and I am not sure if they still exist.
Gotta go guys.
I have a date…with a chick.
“Would a Gentile be able to go remain in the courts having eaten pork and refused mikveh? What if they had touched a corpse? If they are in a state of conferring tumah, what then? ”
Drake… the evidence from rabbinical sources that I’ve come across all points to no mikveh requirements for Gentiles when they visit the Outer Courts of the Temple (Jews, on the other hand, MUST go to mikveh, even if just visiting the Outer Court area). Even if Gentiles take a mikveh, it will not ritually purify them. The only requirement is that they go barefoot (socks OK) or wear non-leather shoes. I have not found anything that says otherwise – but welcome evidence to the contrary.
“Also, the pilgrim feasts are sabbaths, right? And they are all timed around sabbaths, yes? So a Gentile would have to rearrange himself to a sabbath calendar?’
It does appear that some form of Sabbath rest, or at least worship, will be mandated for everyone in the Messianic Kingdom. I base it on Isaiah 66:23:
“..from one Sabbath to another, all mankind (flesh) will come and bow down before me,” says the L-RD.”
“If that is the case, then Gentiles would be mandated to keep more of the Torah. Right?”
Yes, definitely. That said, in no way will this be exactly the same as for Israel, if anything simply because Gentiles (except on certain holy days) will remain living in their own lands and as we know most of Torah is tied to the Land of Israel and the Temple. Torah can’t be fully observed in exile and in the absence of the Temple, even by Jews.
“Oo-oo, make that a rack of lamb and a nice red wine!”
marco… as someone originally from Ukraine, I know for a fact that “salo”, or salted and smoked pork lard is THE #1 Ukrainian national food.
In Ukraine, they even started making “pork lard in chocolate”, or “salo v shakaladeh”, alas mostly for the tourists.
Gene,
I am familiar with the prevalence of pork in the Ukrainian cuisine, and do remember it used in/on the pyrohy (the Canadian Ukrainian spelling of perogy), the kobasa, studenetz (that was one is so gross to me since I was a kid), and the schmaltz.
One Dido of mine, from the old country, used to slather lard on a piece of bread. Me, I couldn’t stand it. When he lived with us, he substituted it with Crisco (vegetable based shortening).
Since coming to the understanding of Y’shua as the Messiah, and my family and I eschew the stuff and don’t miss it at all. My Chinese wife is a wonderful cook and baker. Her cultural has a lot of pork and seafood, and her side of the family has been quite accommodating when we have get-togethers – actually, both sides are good to us. Our 2 children have never the taste of any kind of pork and seem to live a more kashrut diet than some of the kids’ families at their Jewish day school. Go figure. But that’s not the subject here.
Drake,
Even if I did “win” I would have to decline due to the swine content. If you give part marks, I’ll gladly accept the wine/beer. : ) Enjoy your date!
Oh, I still consider myself Ukrainian, though by most standards, a very poor one (don’t even like sour cream – what’s wrong with me? LOL)!
I seem to be a lousy speller.
Let’s try this part again:
“Since coming to the understanding of Y’shua as the Messiah, my family and I eschew the stuff and don’t miss it at all. My Chinese wife is a wonderful cook and baker. Her culture has a lot of pork and seafood,…”
Did I miss anything else?
I did miss another:
“Our 2 children have never tasted any kind of pork…”
Gene,
My uncle goes to the Ukraine quite often, and keeps suggesting I tag along. Given what you show as the #1 food and dessert, I don’t think I could survive. ): P
Nuts, I found another spelling error in my original posting… I must be tired.
“My uncle goes to the Ukraine quite often, and keeps suggesting I tag along. Given what you show as the #1 food and dessert, I don’t think I could survive.”
Marco…. You’ll be fine…. if you just eat veggies (by which I mean potatoes and sour cabbage). Yes, it will be hard if not impossible to avoid eating pork in any meat dishes (even “beef” ones), although you don’t have to worry about shellfish (save for small lobsters sometimes eaten with beer).
Thanks, Gene. Would like to go sometime, but I think I’d still be a bit paranoid.
That pork lard picture was so gross…
“That pork lard picture was so gross…”
Actually, the one in the photo doesn’t look too bad. Most that I’ve seen in person had pig stubble sticking out of the skin like a five o’clock shadow.
I have heard some rabbis say that Noahides are free to build an altar anywhere and give only olah. What are your thoughts on this?
What small kid who reads the bible does not at one point build an altar and “activate” it by setting a fire on it? I did. In fact, I used to believe churches burned the cash from the offering tray and G-d gave the pastors godly powers in return.
“I have heard some rabbis say that Noahides are free to build an altar anywhere and give only olah. What are your thoughts on this?”
Drake, that has been my understanding as well. Since people from other nations do not live in the Land of Israel, G-d doesn’t expect or require them to offer sacrifices only in the Temple.
“I used to believe churches burned the cash from the offering tray and G-d gave the pastors godly powers in return.”
I guess you were also too small to know that according to Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code burning money is illegal and is the only reason churches do not burn the money donated to G-d as a burnt offering but are instead forced to use it for other, less lofty purposes.
That news makes me wanna kill a critter and set it on fire.
That news makes me wanna kill a critter and set it on fire.
In my neighborhood, they call that a barbecue. ;-)
“That news makes me wanna kill a critter and set it on fire.”
I think it all depends on size of that critter. If it the size of a sheep or cow and sort of looks exactly like these animals, you should be OK. If it’s around the size of a dog or a cat, especially if the said critter barks or meows, you may be arrested.
Enjoyed the initial teaching… B”H.
Part of me really does hope that Gentiles have a share in the Temple life. Until G-d gives us a Holy Way that defines us as something other than a foil to Jews, Torah is the only one I can actually see and enjoy.
But beyond that, I remember the Master talking to his people, saying to store up treasures in Heaven where there is no rust or moth. That was the Tabernacle. Incense kept away bugs for a mile, copper is naturally anti-microbial, and gold never rust.
And yet at the construction with Bezalel and Oholiab, Moshe and HaShem issued a request that the people give their treasures and talents to build the Temple, where rust and moth do not ruin. The Tabernacle was not constructed yet, though the Mosaic Covenant was made. They could not “see” the Tabernacle, only lend their gifts to its rumor. That is like us in this life. We live in a time where there is no Temple, a prophet like Moses telling us to render our gifts to the Kingdom, right after being given a Messianic Covenant.
For where your treasure is, your heart will be also.
Of course, Gene’s reply to this will be that the givers never got to see their treasure ever again, leaving me in the Outer Courts, and that the “reward” Moshe hammered out was actual land and life in the Promised Land to his people for having dutifully surrendered things to be never seen again.
* or seen only by someone else rather.
“Part of me really does hope that Gentiles have a share in the Temple life. Until G-d gives us a Holy Way that defines us as something other than a foil to Jews, Torah is the only one I can actually see and enjoy.”
Drake, if G-d does have a plan for Gentiles to participate more in the Temple, in ways OTHER than what I described above, well more power to everyone. Derek wrote in his book The World To Come that Gentiles will be selected to serve as priests and Levites (not sure how that works out in light of Ezekiel 44:14-15). So, there’s a chance and the best thing is, I won’t have a say in any of it!
“For where your treasure is, your heart will be also.”
If my treasure went into the area where only priests can hang out, I, though a Jew, won’t see it either, even if my heart was suppose to come along for the ride. So, don’t feel too slighted.
Yeah…maybe the Gentile priests will be “adopted” into the house of Zadok. I dunno. I am tossing jello to see what sticks. I know Derek lives in Isaiah.
If Zadok is risen, I guess he can do that lie Jacob did.
Hi Gene:
I am new in this blog, but I was doing a research about the tabernacle and I encountered this post. When I saw that Derek Leman answered you I was expecting him to give you the right texts, but he did not. The things you failed to explain are the followings:
1. Eunuchs from the nations dwelling in the temple of G-od – Isaiah 56:3-5
2. Levites taken from the nations during the Messianic era – Isaiah 66:18-21
3. Open call made by Yeshua to all the conquerors (Revelation 3:12) – I will make him column in the temple of my G-od, and HE WILL NEVER GO OUTSIDE.
I hope it is not too late for your answers, since this post is from almost a year ago.
Shalom
Jimmy
Jimmy….
“1. Eunuchs from the nations dwelling in the temple of G-od – Isaiah 56:3-5″
Gentiles and others have access to the Temple, as they have always. What areas they have access to, as opposed to priests, Levites and Israelites, that’s a different story and one that I have already explained in detail.
“2. Levites taken from the nations during the Messianic era – Isaiah 66:18-21″
How can a “Levite” or a cohen (from tribe of Levy) be from a Gentile nation? That’s an interpretation that doesn’t hold when reading the text you cited. A more consistent interpretation of Isaiah 66:18-21, and one that is supported by the context, logic and Jewish traditional reading, is that Gentiles will carry Jews back to the Land of Israel, and among them will be Levites and cohens.
Let’s look at it closer:
“And they (WHO? Gentiles) will bring all your people (WHO? Jews), from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the L-rd—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the L-rd. “They (WHO? Gentiles) will bring them (WHO? Jews), as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. And I will select some of them (WHO? here that “Them” again – Jews being brought back) also to be priests and Levites,” says the L-rd.”
“3. Open call made by Yeshua to all the conquerors (Revelation 3:12) – I will make him column in the temple of my G-od, and HE WILL NEVER GO OUTSIDE.”
Jimmy, that’s an obvious metaphor, not a practical application to the real world Temple on earth. We won’t actually become “columns” that do not “go outside.” Remember that whole Israel is called a “nation of priests” (Exodus 19:6), and yet, there are still actual priests whose duty cannot be taken over by a regular Israelites (even though supposedly every one of Israelites is also a “priest”).
“I hope it is not too late for your answers, since this post is from almost a year ago.”
Never too late!
בס”ד
חג אורים שמח
Shalom Gene,
I happened to drop by your blog today, the first day of Hanukkah, and saw the comments related to the Temple. Quite appropriate, given that Hanukkah is, in part, the remembrance of the rededication of the Temple after defilement by hellenistic authorities and the “mityav’nim”. I’ve read the comments and I’ll just add this:
The author of Hebrews asserts that even Yeshua would not have taken upon himself functions in the earthly Temple that were not accorded by Torah. And he wrote, “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about cohanim.” (Hebrews 7:14)
But, for the author of Hebrews, the glory of the New Covenant is that Messiah has a greater “k’hunah” (priesthood) than that of Aaron, and it is centered in the true Mishkan in Heaven (Hebrews 8), of which the earthly Mishkan and Mikdash are holy copies. From that point of view, Sha’ul the Shaliach urged disciples, Jew and Greek, who are “in Messiah” to be “seated in the heavenlies” i.e. the holy Heavenly Mishkan.
There are both specific time-frames and specific people-groups that are related to both the Heavenly Mishkan, and to the earthly Mikdash. Mixing them up is not advised.
I agree with you Gene about Isaiah 66. I read through the passage in Hebrew and there’s no reason to believe non-Israelites are chosen to be cohanim or Levites. The term Levites in any case describes people from the tribe of Levi, the patriarch. The people of Levi were chosen for Hashem’s service because of their faithfulness during the rebellion of the golden calf. So it is hard to understand how anyone other than descendants of Levi can be “Levites.”
On the other hand, the word “cohen” is a term for religious function. In the book of Revelation faithful disciples of Messiah are called cohanim of Hashem, and they serve Hashem in the greater Heavenly Mishkah. But since Yeshua is our guide (Hebrews 8:4) that doesn’t mean every disciple of Messiah now can serve in the earthly Mikdash.
In the future age, after the return of Messiah and the resurrection of his disciples, I do not think resurrected disciples will serve in the physical earthly Mikdash. And that seems to be the contention of some of the commenters here, i.e. that after Messiah’s return and the resurrection of his discicples, they will literally serve in the earthly Mikdash. Seems superfluous to me…
Best wishes and Hag Urim Sameach.
Good points, benkeshet.
“In the future age, after the return of Messiah and the resurrection of his disciples, I do not think resurrected disciples will serve in the physical earthly Mikdash.”
That’s certainly up in the air, and I am not sure how exactly the millions upon millions if not billions resurrected will mix with others who have not died… On the other hand, what would the resurrected righteous be actually doing on earth? I find it hard to believe that the Holy Temple in Jerusalem where the Presence of G-d dwells would be something that they would not participate in.
The Temple is for the 1000 years of shabbath and in the Olam Haba HASHEM Himself will be The Temple (Revelation 21:22), as He always has been in a hidden way during the time(s?) of the exile(s) (see Yechezekel 11:16).
Shmuel, yes, but what about the original question – what will the resurrected righteous be doing on earth for the 1000 years when the Third Temple does stand and functions?
בס”ד
Shalom Gene,
You have a good question and I really don’t have a full idea. It does appear that righteous resurrected disciples will interact with pre-resurrected people who survive the cataclysms of “hevlay HaMashiach” and who are alive on earth after Messiah’s return. What kind of interaction is the question.
There is some sort of intersection between the heavenly Mishkan and the earthly Temple, though IMHO they are not the same entity. After Messiah returns the intersection between heavenly and earthly will be very close. But, if I can be graphic, I simply have a hard time believing resurrected disciples of Messiah will themselves slaughter animals and splash their blood on the altar, though it looks very clear that there will be such activity in the earthly Temple performed by the pre-resurrected population that enters the millennial Kingdom. That is the kind of difference that I have in mind.
Both Eliyahu and Moshe appeared transformed in a similar way to Yeshua’s transformation in the vision on the mount of Transfiguration. Then too, Sha’ul the Shaliach asked the Corinthians, “do you not know that we shall ‘judge’ angels?” 1 Cor. 6:3, and that seems to mean participation in governance, as in the days of the “Judges” (and not strictly the idea of pronouncing judgement after a trial). So there is evidence that resurrected disciples share in Messiah’s governance of both the spiritual and physical world. I can only imagine that such activities in Messiah’s court would be magnificent and fascinating. Beyond these admittedly vague ideas I really can’t say more.
Hanukkah Sameach!
Why would the temple still need to be guarded in the future if evil and Satan have been bound and destroyed? Would not the need for the law and seperation fall away with the New Heaven and New Earth?
“Why would the temple still need to be guarded in the future if evil and Satan have been bound and destroyed?”
Stephanie, we have to be careful not to assume too much when reading prophecies and especially spiritual allegories. What event happens after which? There’s much disagreement. Unfortunately, many believers have been profoundly affected by populist interpretations and the “Left Behind” fiction.
Please note that there are different levels of holiness. Each must be guarded to remain holy (separated). It’s nothing to do with evil and Satan.
Funny you relied on attacking popular culture, which I did not use as substantiation anywhere in my comment (Straw Man Fallacy), and then assumed a lack of close observation. I found nothing in your counter that addressed a need to protect different levels of holiness if that which is lacking in holiness has been bound.
I do find lack of reflection and perhaps too strong of analytic influence.
“I do find lack of reflection and perhaps too strong of analytic influence.”
Stephanie… are you here to dialog, ask questions or indulge in a personal attack?
To get back to your original question:
There will indeed be sin and sinners in the Kingdom of Messiah. We know that from the prophets:
Isaiah states, “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” (Isaiah 65:20)”
Also, even though all nations will be required to appear before G-d in Jerusalem (e.g. during the feast of Tabernacles), if they fail to appear (e.g. if they sin/disobey G-d), they will be punished:
“Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the L-rd Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the L-rd Almighty, they will have no rain. If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The L-rd will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.” (Zechariah 14:16-19)
While Satan does sometimes prompt people to sin, we are led away by our own sins and desires.
“But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” (James 1:14)
Of course, those righteous who have been resurrected at the coming of Messiah will no longer sin. The New Heaven and New Earth are symbols of Messianic renewal of all things (Isaiah 65:17), when G-d will purify everything.
Actually, in Revelation 11:2, the Greek Interlinear reads, … but the court which is within the sanctuary leave out and ….
Actually, in the Textus Receptus [Received Text] Revelation 11:2, says, … but the court which is within the sanctuary leave out and measure it not…
“but the court which is within the sanctuary leave out and measure it not…”
Donna…. every single English translation has it as “outer court” or “outside the sanctuary” for the following reason:
In the Textus Receptus in Revelation 11:2 the Greek word for “without” is actually comprised of two Greek words, εξωθεη (exothen – outside) and εσωθεν (esothen – within).
Coincidentally, even the English word “without” is comprised of two words that if taken apart will mean the opposite of each other: with and out.