Should Christ Be ‘Worshipped’? If So, In What Way?



Submit to and do obeisance before the “Lord of Lords and the King of Kings


Should Christ Be ‘Worshipped’?

What does the Bible have to say about the matter?

How then should he be ‘worshipped’?

The word ‘worship’ is a translation of the Greek word ‘proskuneo‘ or ‘proskunhsei‘.

Paying ‘obeisance‘ is worshipful honor and respect. It is not in rivalry with worship of God but relative to it and for Christians, in conjunction with the worship of God.

Here is the definition of obeisance according to the Cambridge dictionary:

noun. a movement of the body expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy, as before a superior; a bow, curtsy, or other similar gesture. deference or homage: example: The nobles gave obeisance to the new king.

Hebrews 1:6 tells us it by the Father’s command that all the angels “worship” His “first-begotten”, Christ.

“And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship (proskunhsatwsan) him”.

Note too what Jesus said about his faithful brothers at the time of the End:

Revelation 3:9

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship (proskunhsousin) before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee”.

Of course Jesus was not saying that they would be ‘worshipped‘ as we worship the Father. So, he is not contradicting the statement he made to Satan when being tempted by the devil:

Luke 4:8

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskunhseis) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”.

Here the same Greek root word, ‘proskuneo‘ and ‘proskunhsei‘ is used as found at Hebrews 1:6 (proskunhsatwsan) and Revelation 3:9 (proskunhsousin).

Christ as both High Priest and as King is worthy of worshipful acts of obeisance because God glorified him to be worthy of such. As Hebrews 1:6 clearly states, it is God’s command. The command is not only for the angels in Heaven but applies to humans as well.

There is a difference between worshipful acts of obeisance honoring our Lord and the worship we on render exclusively to God Almighty.


Those Who Refuse to Give Proper Honor to Christ

Jesus said, “You will tell a tree by the fruit it bears”. Conversely it stands to reason that you can also tell about a “tree” by the absence of “fruit”.

This is the lesson found at Mark 11:12-14: ‘The Barren Fig Tree Is Cursed’

12 The next day when they came out from Bethany, He was hungry. 13 After seeing in the distance a fig tree with leaves, He went to find out if there was anything on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” And His disciples heard it. (HCSB)

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” are among many other professed groups of disciples of Jesus who have all but omitted Jesus from their teaching. They talk around Christ if they even mention him at all.

They bear a type of “fruit” that glorifies others….organizations and men such as Charles T. Russell, J. F. Rutherford, and the man behind the men Frederick Franz. Doing so, they have no “fruit” with respect to Jesus and are “barren” trees according to the Lord.

The Organization and its leaders have become their own attempted intermediary with God in the absence of Christ.

Jesus told the outcome of such barren trees: Matthew 7:15-20

“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. 16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So you’ll recognize them by their fruit”.

Those who attempt to worship God without Christ are ‘antichrist’. Antichrist is simply anyone or anything in opposition to the authority of Christ. Who were the antichrist when Jesus was on Earth? They were those who rejected him and sought salvation through another source…the Jewish State. Today that particular ‘antichrist’ is still in operation. In addition there have over the centuries arisen other antichrist.

Almighty God put Jesus Christ in the position of High Priest. Therefore there is but one means to approach God and that is through Jesus. No more than could a person approach the earthly temple of God and offer a sacrifice without the high priest positioned as the intermediary, can one approach God without doing so through Christ the eternal High Priest of God.



Back to top

Advertisements

FINDING YOUR WAY THROUGH SATAN’S LABYRINTH

 



“But solid food is for the mature—for those whose senses have been trained to distinguish between good and evil”


Why sharpen your reasoning abilities now?

When you hear the words ‘Reason’ and ‘Logic’, what do you think?

Some people immediately are put off by the suggestion that we need to logically reason on matters. They somehow view logic as something foreign to “spirituality’.

The Bible teaches that God Almighty is a ‘God of Reason’. He is the One that designed us to have the capability to reason. Why would He create us with this ability if we were not to be expected to use it?

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”

1 Peter 3:15

How can a person make a defense of their Christian faith unless they have based their faith on clear evidence and have reasoned on that evidence?

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”

Isaiah 1:18

Almighty God himself encourages reasoning; even reasoning with Him. God certainly does not discourage a person from using the power of reason.

“Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right.”

Isaiah 43:26

Our beliefs should be tested. God challenges to us to “state our cause” and defend it.

“Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

Acts 17:1-3

The earliest disciples of Jesus Christ reasoned with those they preached to, “giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead”. Evidence is found by ‘reasoning’ on facts.

“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”

1 Corinthians 13:11

Paul was not satisfied with his current state of personal and spiritual growth and continued to advance through life in personal and spiritual growth. He no longer continued, to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

Isaiah 55:8-9

Since God’s thoughts are “higher” than our thoughts, it should be obvious that we need to sharpen what reasoning ability we do have, in order to appreciate the higher and more lofty thoughts of God.

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,”

Romans 2:14-15

Using the Holy Bible as a ‘test rod’ to determine whether our thoughts and behaviors are consistent with the will of God or they are not, will either defend our spiritual stance or condemn it. The above Scripture also points out that reason affects everyone’s life; including the unbeliever.

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;” Isaiah 1:18-19

Here is a clear invitation by God to reason. Not just to ‘reason’; but to reason with Him.



‘mixing’ and ‘confusion’ are hallmark characteristics associated with Babylon


 

Babylonian Traits of Behavior

When examining the pattern of ancient Babylon and then comparing the traits found in modern “Babylon the Great”, the subject of ‘reason’ plays a significant role.

God put the workers of the Tower of Babel into a ‘confused’ state to break up their works and scatter them. Since they were no longer able to converse because their languages had been confused, they could not continue their plan. They were unable to ‘reason’ with one another.

God caused Nebuchaneezzar to think like an unreasoning beast

Later in Daniel’s time, God caused King Nebuchadnezzar to go and live as the ‘unreasoning’ beast of the fields for 7 years.

He exhibited the behaviors of like a ‘wild beast’ and he thought unreasonably.

Today, we see humankind on a grand scale behaving in a confused, unreasoning manner. They think and act as the unreasoning wild beast do. What occurred at the Tower of Babel and what occurred to Nebuchadnezzar is now happening to all who remain under a demonic spell that the devil has cast.

Many will claim that they have ‘escaped’ “Babylon the Great”. But reason says that that cannot be true. While many have escaped the clutches of false worship, they have not escaped the global-reach of Satan’s influence. His influence effects more than organized religion. Babylon the Great is a ‘world empire’ just a the nation of Babylon was.

It was not until King Cyrus came and overthrew the Babylonians that the captives were freed.

There is a big distinction between being ‘free’ from the corruption of the devil’s empire by “not touching the unclean thing”, and being out from under its global influence and its ability to affect you.

So, we remain physical captives of Satan’s global empire until the time the “Greater Cyrus” who is the resurrected, glorified Jesus Christ comes and breaks forever the Babylonian yoke of slavery.

A person cannot simply ‘walk’ out of “Babylon the Great” any more than one could simply walk out of Babylon. One cannot just simply, “get away”. Was that to be expected then? Think of Jesus words in the Revelation He gave to John.

In the vision Christ Jesus gave to John that is recorded as the Book of Revelation, it opens by stating that John was by Spirit, “put into seeing symbolic events that referred to the Day of the Lord, the Day of his Second Coming, the Last Days.

Revelation chapter 2

9 “I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of God’s word and the testimony about Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard a loud voice behind me like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

So those involved in this messages Christ is giving are souls alive at this time. And also given that these are messages to the “angels” of the churches, then the condition apply to these body members of the church.

In His words to the church in Pergamum, Jesus describes their environment and their current living circumstances clearly.

Revelation chapter 2:

12 “Write to the angel of the church in Pergamum:

“The One who has the sharp, double-edged sword says: 13 I know where you live—where Satan’s throne is! And you are holding on to My name and did not deny your faith in Me, even in the days of Antipas, My faithful witness who was killed among you, where Satan lives.”

The Lord indicates an ongoing struggle against ungodly thinking and behavior in an extremely vulnerable proximity to the center of the devil’s operation. He did not instruct them to move somewhere else. Being under the dominance and control of the city-state world empire Babylon did not require one to be within the city’s ‘official’ walls where the throne of the king was. Being near the devil’s center of activity is no different from being on the far-flung edges of his empire Babylon the Great.


‘Babylon the Great’, the Demon-Controlled World Empire

Satan is the ruler of the present global system

But if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Babylon the Great is a pervasive demon-inspired Global Culture. This demon-controlled World Empire controls governmental authority, exchange of goods, and set the ethical/moral/social norms.

That power continues to exist and exert itself on ALL of humankind. A key to it’s powerful hold is the element of ‘Blackmail’.

This scenario is well depicted in the Book of Revelation and it is quite recognizable. It is significant as its pattern is followed through, being acted out in the social behavior of human beings.

This form of ‘enslavement’ (the wild beast is enslaved to the harlot against its own will) exist throughout the world from top highest governmental relationships all the way through society to relationships among individual family members in the confined quarters of a single home. The whole world lies in the power of the “wicked one”.

The snare of entrapment centers on personal desire for immoral things and then the desire to hide one’s complicity (sin) so as not to suffer loss.

A person then falls into a baited trap: seduction, compromised interest, secrets that must remain secrets, and blackmailed into submission.

Ask: How does a prostitute gain control over a powerful man? Answer: blackmailed by all the “disgusting things” in her cup.

She holds these secret liaisons over the heads of the kings of the earth and then blackmail them into obedience.

As you look at the illustration, try to appreciate how pervasive and manipulative this wicked spirit has been and how widely blackmail is practiced today over millions, controlling great masses of people.

Surely, the wild beast has great cause to hate the mysterious Great Harlot that sits astride it’s back.

 

 


The “Wormwood” Effect

Wormwood is a result of mixing pure water (truth) with poison (lie). That is a process of adding something to something else.

The pure water is the knowledge from God received from accepting the Holy Scriptures as written. Drinking this knowledge itself requires no special powers of discernment. It only requires acceptance of what is written.

Wormwood is the adding of spurious teachings that distort the pattern of teachings one learns from reading God’s word the Bible. It results in a mixed ‘cup’ of knowledge.

Wormwood applies much more broadly than religious/specific teachings. Wormwood poisoning can be seen in all social settings humans engage in. The lacing of truth with lie is found everywhere.

The best admonition is that each person individually, pay attention to the ‘water source’ they are drinking from.

The pure knowledge of God will not make you doubt or be confused.

This poison water flows from out of the demonic kingdom of confusion, Babylon. Its purpose is to make a person question their own perception of reality and the foundation of their faith. Its purpose is to cause doubt, unsurety, and indecisiveness.

Two books offer the Watchtower’s most in-depth considerations of its interpretation of the Book of Revelation. These are “Babylon the Great has Fallen, God’s Kingdom Rules” and “Revelation-The Grand Climax is at Hand!”.



Watchtower study publications


The Identity of “Babylon the Great”

The identity and scope of “Babylon the Great” is being revealed as the unfolding of events and circumstance reveal it. The word ‘revelation’ literally infers an unfolding exposé.

What was once considered to be correct conclusions of Babylon the Greats’ identity and nature must now be reconsidered.

As a child studying the “Babylon the Great has Fallen” book (mid 1960’s), I wondered how man could get rid of all religious worship in opposition to the true God. It was taught for decades that the United Nations was the “wild beast” in the Revelation to John and it would destroy all false worship.

I could not imagine how a group of humans could possibly accomplish this feat and how long it would take them to do it.

How do you destroy false religion without destroying the people who practice it? False worship isn’t buildings like cathedrals. It’s people and their practices.

It would require a house by house search of the entire world!

Much religious is secretive and not practiced in open sight. As the Bible testifies, people have gone to great lengths to practice pagan rituals. They did so from roof tops to remote sites in the woods according to Scripture.

Recall that in early human history it was customary for individuals to keep personal idols to false gods upon their person and in their homes.

Think of what that would take to stop false worship globally. False worship is practiced in every inhabited place on earth!

The belief Jehovah’s Witnesses have that all false worship will be destroyed before the end comes, is based on the phrase they have heard repeated over and over again in their publications and talks: “Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion”.

This statement cannot be found in Scripture and makes Babylon the Great synonymous to and limited to organized false religious worship.

Given that mankind is on the brink of self-destruction, the vastness of the task of stopping false worship, and the time it would take to accomplish this feat if even possible…it seems quite implausible.

After the “beast” has turned upon it’s rider the Great Harlot, those remaining will still be worshiping the chief demon and his demon angels. This attack results only in a change in the hierarchy of demon authority and it’s control structure. Satan’s system is based on competition and a pyramidal scramble to it’s top.

In the Revelation, the dragon (Satan) gives his power to the beast and it this beast that is the object of worship.

They worshiped the dragon because he gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against him?” Revelation 13:4

It is not the rider, the Great Whore, who is the object of worship.

Since the beast has the power, the question arises: How does the harlot who sits astride the beast maintain control over it; the beast being more powerful?

It is by seduction, secrets, and blackmail.

So long as the demons are in power there will continue to be ‘false worship’.

That will not end until our Messiah, Jesus Christ, returns and cast the demons out of this realm of existence.

It would be good to re-examine your thoughts on this matter.


Failure to Grasp the Understanding of End Time Prophecy

You may be familiar with the Watchtower publication, “Revelation, Its Grand Climax At Hand!”. It was first published in 1984 and was offered to the public, as well as used as an internal study tool for over 20 years.

This book was being studied by Jehovah’s Witnesses in their weekly book study (book study is their choice of words) up until as recently as the year 2007.

So, attempting to prognosticate Biblical prophecy by the Watchtower is not something in the distant past as they are now claiming. They are simply attempting to cover over their past.

If you can obtain a copy of this book, you will probably be amazed at some of Watchtower’s interpretation of the Book of Revelation and its fulfillment.

Who are the “locust” mentioned in Revelation 9?

An example would be the interpretation of Revelation chapter 9 concerning the “locust” released from the abyss by a “falling star” or fallen angel (see Revelation 9:1).

“And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.”
Revelation 9:3

The Watchtower Society teaches that the locust described in Revelation chapter 9, were their spiritual leaders in 1919 A.D.

(See “Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand!” pages 143-154)

Revelation 9:1 tells us that the locust were released by a “falling star” or a fallen angel. So, they are attributing their rescue from an “abyss of spiritual inactivity” in 1919 to a demon.

The locust were permitted to torment only those that did not have the “seal of the living God.”

If these locusts really pictured the anointed brothers of Christ, they would not have had to be instructed not to “harm” one another?

Fooled by as John puts it, “what ‘seemed’ to be gold crowns on their heads, the Watchtower leaders have assumed that the locust must be righteous. They saw these as the kingly crowns to be yet granted to the elect. (page 146)

They have based interpretations of Revelation chapter 9 on what is written later in Revelation chapter 20. That is a huge mistake. In Revelation 20, the circumstances have changed.

Revelation 20:1 refers to a later time when another angel is seen “coming down (not falling down) holding in his hand the key to the abyss”. At this time, that authority will have been returned to the One that has been given authority over all things at the End.

They teach that this latter angel is the same angel who has authority over the abyss in Chapter 9 (Abaddon, “The Destroyer”). That is an assumption.

Revelation chapter 9 is about fallen angels, jurisdictions under their control, and demonic activities. It has nothing at all to do with righteous activities direct by Christ.

Who are the Locust? What do They Do?

As noted in reading, Revelation chapter 9 foretells of the unleashing on humankind of ‘locust’ by a fallen angel called “the Destroyer”.

These demon spirits have been unleashed and they orchestrate anarchy by permitting people and groups of people to act out in anti-social, disruptive behaviors.

This is occurring on a global scale.

Today the grossly mentally ill wander the streets of community behaving in both bizarre and socially disruptive manners. Yet it is tolerated. Why? It is to plague and torment human society.

Criminals dangerous to society at large are released from prison unreformed back into communities. Yet it is tolerated. Plagued severely as the Revelation to John foretold, yet they refuse to repent and turn away from worshipping demons. Yet it is tolerated. Why? Again, it is to plague and torment human society.

It is obvious to most reasoning people that to allow these things is causing social disruption and dysfunction…the goal of anarchist. Their intent is to destroy the social fabric of humanity as Satan’s goal is to disrupt and destroy the fabric of creation.

Have they (the Watchtower Organization) been guided by ‘true’ spiritual light shed by Christ? Evidently not. He would not have led them to confusion and unholy acts.

Progressive understanding is much like a vision-scene that is crystallizing.

Increasing light as the day advances clarifies a dull image. What is in darkness appearing unclear, becomes solidly distinguishable in brighter light.

Example: If someone appears to be Abraham Lincoln in low light, bright light should not reveal that it was Donald Duck all along that they were looking at!

Increased understanding is not a totally new understanding.

When your views/beliefs morph into something different, that isn’t the light getting brighter at all; that is a change to something else unlike what you saw at first.

However this is the reasoning the Watchtower’s defenders use; which is the so-called reasoning used by all false prophets when their predictions fail to materialize.

Is the Bible all symbolism?


The Literal vs the Symbolic:

Is Armageddon a Real War?

Armageddon is God’s Holy war of Divine intervention into this realm. It is a supernatural event. Holy Scripture calls it, “the Great Day of God the Almighty”. Note Psalm 2:2

“The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together
against the LORD and against his Messiah.”
(Psalm 2:2)

This war is wage by spirit creatures against real creatures (angels) cast from that supernatural dimension of creation, Heaven and these fallen angel’s human subjects.

Armageddon is a war to rid creation of these creatures and their seed in fleshly, human form.

Falsely defining the nature of the “Great war of God the Almighty” as an internal struggle among elements currently present in this realm, denies the necessity of Divine intervention to overthrow the devil. It also denies the need for Jesus, who is also real and not symbolic, to come and set creation free.

Ask yourself: At the end of what you see and have defined Armageddon to be, where will Satan and his demons be standing?

How and at what point are these wicked angels fought against and conquered literally?

Symbolic speech is used to describe ‘real’ things. Symbolic speech is not for the purpose of creating more symbolism. At what point does one understand and accept what the Bible says literally?

The ongoing spiritual struggle is preliminary to battle of Armageddon and cannot bring what only Christ can bring by fighting and winning.

The demons desire that those seeking to follow the will of God to be unsure, doubtful and confused. The Bible warns to not be turned aside by some ‘new’ teaching or interpretation. But we are to keep with the true gospel that we received by Spirit at the first.

How many of us were taught or have believed that Armageddon is anything other than described in the Bible and here?

The devil and his fellow fallen angels were ousted from Heaven as a result of war. They had to be thrown out.

They are not liking to surrender or go quietly from this realm either; especially knowing what their final destiny to be.

Armageddon is a war involving real spirit creatures, angels, in real combat. It is not symbolic of something occurring internally amongst the affairs of man and it is not a war of words among human beings as some are teaching. It is not telling of truth to conquer lies.

Wormwood affects ALL available knowledge and it is not limited to religious matters alone.


Struggling Against Demonic Attacks and Demonic Influences

 





At this time just before the conclusion of the system of things, the chosen children of God are under extreme harassment by the chief demon, Satan the devil (Daniel 7:25). As the prophet Daniel saw, he would orchestrate events in such a way as to confuse and disorient the chosen ones so that they would not be perceptive as to where they stand in the stream of events and times according to God. That prophecy assures that he would have certain success in doing so for a period. But not for the complete period as it would be cut short and interrupted.

These things are concerning the last days or the conclusion of the system of things. That is borne out by the words of the following verses that could only pertain to the end times:

“He will speak words against the Most High and oppress the holy ones of the Most High. He will intend to change religious festivals and laws, and the holy ones will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time.

But the court will convene, and his dominion will be taken away, to be completely destroyed forever.

The kingdom, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

“This is the end of the interpretation. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts terrified me greatly, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.” Daniel 7:25-28 HCSB

Satan’s deception is fully at work now and explains the many competing opinions of where we stand in conjunction with the End. Most people have either been waiting so long that they are unsure why things are “delaying”. While others have convinced themselves by their own observations that this or that needs to occur, so it couldn’t be now.

The Lord will catch them because it was that they relied on their own perceptive powers. They are inattentive and will be caught asleep. But God’s children are not like these.

Added to this are the torments that this wicked world inflicts on all who will not conform and submit to it and the devil.

The artifacts of the occult and demonology are embedded or emblazoned everywhere one can see. They are on all the high places as much today as they were in ancient times. Many items people innocently purchase or possess are branded with symbols related to the worship of false gods. There is a current U.S. television series that portrays the Nephilim as “victims”… as fallen angels who want to be “righteous” but the holy angels are hunting them down. So that the bad becomes good and what is Holy and righteous is cast as bad. This is purely debased and demonic reasoning.

There is a significant trend of mother’s instilling thoughts and teachings of witchcraft and homosexuality in the minds of children at a very early age. It is a type of programming or conditioning to ensure they develop these traits. It is a sort of ‘social engineering’.

Witchcraft has become socially acceptable entertainment under sleek packaging like “Harry Potter” which is ladened down with demon iconography. This book is a witchcraft ‘How To’ guide.

We do indeed have a wrestling not against blood and flesh but we are at war with wicked spirit creatures in heavenly place; there they remain unseen harassing God’s true servants. Nimrod was a hunter of men. They hunt like Nimrod all the loyal ones. They possess Nimrod’s spirit; which is the spirit of the Devil.

The fallen angels, have existed from before the beginning of human history. They just find and use different bodies to inhabit along the course of time.

 

“When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it roams through waterless places looking for rest but doesn’t find any. 44 Then it says, ‘I’ll go back to my house that I came from.’ And returning, it finds the house vacant, swept, and put in order. 45 Then off it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and settle down there. As a result, that man’s last condition is worse than the first. That’s how it will also be with this evil generation.”

Matthew 12:43-45

You have brothers and sisters who are currently engaged in this struggle as the Devil more than anything else wants to corrupt the elect ones who have been chosen.

I ask that you include in your prayers your brothers and sisters who are involved in an intense struggle with wicked people and wicked angels in unseen places. Pray that they keep faithful and mindful that they fully discharge their obligation unto the Master, Lord Jesus Christ. And pray for yourself as well that you may not be seduced as Paul said.

But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a complete and pure devotion to Christ”.

2 Corinthians 11:3

The combination of events that are now occurring should be enough let you to know what time it is and that NOW is the time.

May our Father’s grace and blessings flow to both of you and may Lord Jesus be your constant guide.

In Romans chapter 1, Paul explains why people act in ungodly ways. It is because they desire ungodliness. Paul states that God yielded them over to the spirit they were following. Paul details how both their thoughts and their behaviors would stink deeper and deeper into mental and spiritual darkness and unreasonabilty.

Jude 10 puts it this way,

“But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts—by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).” AMP

‘Unreasoning’ and ‘Confusion’ are traits associated with Babylon from the time of the tower build to the time of Nebuchadnezzer to this very day.

Hebrews 5:14:

“But solid food is for the mature—for those whose senses have been trained to distinguish between good and evil”. (HCSB)



Back to top

The Cross And The Crown Symbol-Do you know its origin?





The following is a brief article that explains the origin of the cross/crown symbol. It is not a consideration of the ‘cross’ nor of ‘crowns’; but of this particular symbol depicting a gold prince’s crown hung over a cross (red in particular)

Many have quickly embraced these symbols only seeing a cross and a crown and assumed that these must be in honor of Christ. Many who desire to be identified as Christian disciples use these symbols as depicted in the illustration as a cover photo on their Facebook pages without fully knowing their origin.

 

MASONIC AND EASTERN STAR SYMBOLS by Ray Denslow

One Masonic symbol that appears to be Christian is the cross and the crown emblem. However, this is not the case.

Masonic author, Ray Denslow, reveals:

KNIGHTS TEMPLAR

“The Cross and Crown may be said to be confined almost exclusively to the historical degrees in Masonry as exemplified in the various orders of knighthood of York and Scottish rites. In Gaul we find the cross to have been a solar symbol when it had equal arms and angles; to the Phoenicians it was an instrument of sacrifice to their God, Baal; and to the Egyptians, the crux ansata was his symbol of eternal life.”’

In The Masonic Report we find more about this emblem:

“Question: What does Masonry’s emblem of the ’Cross and Crown’ actually symbolize?

“Answer: The ’Cross’ of Freemasonry is a philosophic- al cross, according to Albert Pike, ’Morals and Dogma,’ p. 771. It is philosophical in the sense that it represents the generating fecundating principle by the perpendicular shaft, and the matrix or womb of nature, the female producing principle. by the horizontal shaft. The philosophy of the Masonic cross is totally phallic.

“The ’Crown’ of this Masonic emblems is also phallic, it being the first emanation of the Cabalistic Sephiroth….”

A former Mason also explains:

“The other York Rite jewelry you may see is the Templar symbol….It is a large Maltese cross with a circle in the center. Inside the circle is a red Latin cross within a crown. Around the arms of the cross is the Commandery motto, ’In Hoc Signo Vinces.’ (In this sign, conquer!)

“Although this may seem harmless enough, the motto is originally attributed to the emperor Constantine, who used it in conjunction with a supposedly heavenly vision to begin the subversion and politicization of Biblical Christianity into the false, apostate Alexandrian cult….

“A similar shell game is played with the word ’sign.’… The sign Constantine referred to was NOT a Christian cross, but a kind of ’X’ which had both Christian and pagan associations. In modern magic, it is the sign of the slain and risen Egyptian god, Osiris (another version of the ’slain and risen’ Hiram Abif).

Again Masonry has downgraded Jesus and replaced Him with its own ‘christ’.”

Two other groups (both with Masonic connections) use the cross and crown. Charles Taze Russell was a Mason who started the Jehovah Witnesses.’4’ He used the red cross and other distinctive features of the Knights Templar logo.’”

He also used the Masonic symbol of the winged sun-disk with snakes and he is ”buried in a pyramid with masonic symbols on its capstone.”

The other group that uses the cross and crown emblem is Christian Science. This group was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in Massachusetts but Mason Henry Steele Olcott, who was co- founder of the Theosophical Society with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky,’” was an associate of Mary Baker Eddy.’”

Some Eddy Brothers held seances and it was at these seances that Blavatsky met Col. Henry Steele Olcott.’” Mary Baker Eddy herself had married a Mason and this was the only secret society which she allowed other Christian Science members to join.’” She even had some of her material published in the Freemason’s Monthly Magazine. ”4 Several people connected with Christian Science such as directors and board members and a number of the editors of The Christian Science Monitor were Masons.’” Even the presidents of the Mother Church in 1922-23 and 1923-24 were Masons.’”

Reference:

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/LahayMasonic.htm

Jesus forwarned:

“False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Matthew 24:24


Back to top

Suppressing The Name and Teachings Of Christ





Have you noticed that many who have claimed that they are disciples of Christ and Christian messengers never even mention Jesus Christ let alone bear witness concerning him? Such absence is telltale and indicative that something is wrong.

Jesus himself counseled:

“You will tell a tree by the fruit it bears.”

If the “tree” is devoid of fruit should tell you something as well.

Some of these even claim to be part of the bride class and yet never mention the bridegroom.

They teach only about the older prophets prior to Christ and skip the Christ himself and what he said ; the one whom they claim they serve and belong to eternally.

Why?

Jesus gave this command before departing the Earth:

“Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit teaching them ALL OF THE THINGS I HAVE COMMANDED YOU…” Matthew 28.

How can one meet this basic command without mentioning Jesus or mentioning what he himself said?

Did he command, “Go therefore and make disciples of Elijah or Isaiah or Daniel teaching them what these prior prophets said”? No. And while teaching what these prior prophets of God said is a very good thing, it cannot substitute for bearing witness to Jesus Christ.

These are aiding in suppressing and hiding the name and the teachings of Jesus Christ, which pleases his enemies and not him.



Back to top

The Only Choice-Why Could Only Jesus Serve As The Ransom Sacrifice?





Students of the Bible understand that Jesus provided a ransom sacrifice spotless and unblemished as required by God to redeem mankind from the slavery to sin and death that Adam and Eve cursed all their descendants to.

1 John 2:1,2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

It should not be overlooked that the chosen one to be offered, had to be a ‘firstborn’ of at least equal value as Adam the firstborn of humankind.

Adam’s sin caused mankind to fall out of grace with God. It became necessary for there to be a means of reconciliation.

God found it acceptable to devise an act of propitiation that would be sufficient that he would open a means to be put right with him.

Propitiation is an action meant to regain someone’s favor or make up for something you did wrong.

He provided His only begotten son to serve as a sacrifice for atonement.

The meaning of the word atonement is simply at-one-ment, He was sacrificed to make all things in Creation at one with God again.

No firstborn animal of a lesser life form would meet the requirements satisfactory to God to serve as the ransomed one.

There is only one other firstborn mentioned in the Scriptures that would possibly qualify. That was the firstborn of creation, the only begotten son of God.

Although he was of much higher stature and value than Adam, he was the only possibility. There were actually no other option; no one else to be considered.

God in his wisdom and foresight withheld immortality from his only begotten son until after his resurrection for this purpose.

Romans 6:9

We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Had God not withheld immortality from His son, this ONLY choice would not have been able to serve as the sacrifice that offset (atoned) for Adam’s transgression. He would not have been able to give up his life because he would not have been able to die. There would have been no one else worthy.

This demonstrates that Almighty God, the Father, knows all thing and he knows the finale from the very beginning.

God’s superlative sacrifice is of sufficient value to cover all things in both Heaven and on Earth. More was being brought back to oneness with God than fallen man. His sacrifice covers things that occurred in the Heavens as well.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.



Back to top

The Watchtower Society-The Two Extremes And The Schism That Followed


A schism offering a false dichotomy



From Zionist To Anti Semitism

One of the groups that Hitler sent to concentration camps were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were forced to endure unspeakable atrocities and many lost their lives. The individual actions of many Witnesses are commendable and the Watchtower holds up this part of their history in great esteem.

What is not discussed is the hypocritical actions of Rutherford in the lead up to these events. Early in 1933, the Watchtower office in Berlin was closed and Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned in many German states.

In an attempt to appease Hitler, Rutherford instigated a Declaration of Facts and sent a letter to Hitler discussing the Watchtower’s support of the Nazi regime.

Current Watchtower references provide a deceptive portrayal of these documents, through selective quoting. The Proclaimer’s book mentions that Rutherford wrote a letter to Hitler under the context of “facing Nazi oppression”, in which the Watchtower Society is made to sound as if they were firmly against the Nazi regime.

“Therefore, on June 25, 1933, a declaration regarding their ministry and its objectives was adopted by Jehovah’s Witnesses at an assembly in Berlin. Copies were sent to all the high government officials, and millions more were distributed to the public. Nevertheless, in July 1933 the courts refused to grant a hearing for relief. Early the following year, a personal letter regarding the situation was written by J. F. Rutherford to Adolf Hitler and delivered to him
by special messenger. Then the entire worldwide brotherhood went into action.

On Sunday morning, October 7,1934, at nine o’clock, every group of Witnesses in Germany assembled. They prayed for Jehovah’s guidance and blessing.

Then each group sent a letter to German government officials declaring their firm determination to keep on serving Jehovah.” – Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimer’s Of God’s Kingdom p.693

It is quite surprising to find the opposite is true, which can be identified when reading the content of Rutherford’s
1933 letter to Hitler and the Declaration of Facts.

Russell, founder of the Watchtower, was a Zionist and sympathetic to Jews as part of modern-day fulfilment of Bible prophecy. Rutherford initially continued such support, but changed by the 1930’s to an anti-Semitic stance.

“Be it known once and for all that those profiteering, conscienceless, selfish men who call themselves Jews, and who
control the greater portion of the finances of the world and the business of the world, will never be the rulers in this new earth.
God would not risk such selfish men with such an important position” The Golden Age 1927 Feb 23 p.343

“The Jews were evicted from Palestine and ‘their house left unto them desolate’ because they rejected Christ Jesus, the beloved and anointed King of Jehovah. To this day the Jews have not repented of this wrongful act committed by their forefathers. … In 1917 the Balfour Declaration, sponsored by the heathen governments of Satan’s organization, came forth, recognized the Jews, and bestowed upon them great favors. … The Jews have received more attention at their hands than they really deserved.” Vindication – Book II (1932) pp.257-258

During the time of Rutherford, Witnesses became known as a religion of hate, due to the Watchtower’s tirade of insults against other Churches and governments. The Catholic Church come under the greatest condemnation and bought this to the attention of the Nazi government, petitioning against the Watchtower Society. In 1933, the Nazi government banned the Watchtower’s German operations.

“In June of the so-called “Holy Year” of 1933 Adolf Hitler’s regime seized the Watch Tower Society’s property in Magdeburg and banned the activities of Jehovah’s people in Germany as regards meetings and literature distribution, though the property was returned that October.” Yearbook 1975 p.174

In an effort to overturn the ban, Rutherford sent a Letter and a Declaration to Hitler, in which he could rightfully praise Hitler for his anti-Anglo/American campaign and his stance against the Jews.

“Following is part of an English translation of the Letter to Hitler. (known as the Declaration of Facts)

“Dear Reichskanzler,

The Brooklyn headquarter of the Watchtower Society is pro-German in an exemplary way and has been so for many years. For that reason, in 1918, the president of the Society and seven members of the board of directors were sentenced to 80 years in prison, because the president refused to use two of the magazines published in America under his direction for war propaganda against Germany. These two magazines, “The Watchtower” and “Bible Student” were the only magazines in America which refused to engage in anti-German propaganda and for that reason were prohibited and suppressed in America during the war.

In the very same manner, in course of the recent months the board of directors of our Society not only refused to engage in propaganda against Germany, but has even taken a position against it. The enclosed declaration underlines this fact and emphasizes that the people leading in such propaganda (Jewish businessmen and Catholics) also are the most rigorous persecutors of the work of our Society and its board of directors. This and other statements of the declaration are meant to repudiate the slanderous accusation, that Bible Researchers are supported by the Jews.

The conference of five thousand delegates also noted – as is expressed in the declaration that the Bible Researchers of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator. The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich.

We are looking forward to your kind approval, which we hope to receive soon, and want to assure our highest respect to you, honorable Mr. Reichskanzler.

Yours faithfully,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Magdeburg”

Excerpt from: nairaland.com/…/watchtower-scandal-rutherfords-letter-hitler


Since that time two groups have formed. One supporters of C. T. Russell (at some times called ‘Russellites’), and another group who support the views and teachings of J. F. Rutherford (Rutherfordites). This schism continues to exist until today. Each group claiming the other is wrong. The reality is that they are both out of harmony with the teachings of the Bible and both fall short of true obedience as disciples of Christ.

They each cling to an earthling man as their spiritual leader. They prove themselves to be disciples of men and not of Christ Jesus.

Paul spoke of this very phenomenon occurring in the first century.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

Just substitute the names Cephas and Apollos with Russell and Rutherford. They both are doing the very thing the Apostle warned against.

Was it Russell that died for you? Was it in Rutherford’s name you were baptized?

They are divided because their discipleships are founded on men and their warring is divisive and hinders the operation of the Holy Spirit. They glorify men and man-made organization and entice others to follow their path.

It is Jesus Christ is who is to be followed. They need to stop putting faith in earthling man.

Charles Taze Russell mixed Bible belief with mysticism (example: seeking answers by studying the Giza pyramid). He was a man who held Zionist beliefs and expectations. He was a man who preached that a person could not come to an accurate understanding of the Bible without reading his books. And he shared other non biblically based thinking.

Joseph Franklin Rutherford was an anti-Semite who groveled at Adolf Hitler’s feet using anti-Semitic speech to appease him. He turned what Russell started into an organizational structure. He also initially share Russell’s Zionist vision of the restoration of physical Israel.

The followers of Russell and the followers of Rutherford offer a false dichotomy. If one chooses either, they are not true followers of Christ and they would have those who listen and believe what they teach remain connected to a house that has been condemned. They will not as Jesus admonished, “Get out of her my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues”.

These have not really heeded Christ warning as they will not make a clean break from the Watchtower Society. They continue to malinger in a house that Christ has condemned.



See also: https://aristarchus144000.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/was-ct-russell-founder-of-jehovahs-witnesses-a-zionist/


Back to top

“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help;…but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel”

Once again as in past history, Israel has “gone down to Egypt” for aid rather than seeking aid from the God of their forefathers. They have turned their backs on God and seek to establish an earthly kingdom despite God. This is open opposition to the Kingdom of God and Christ’ authority as its ruler.

Ancient Israel called on the Egyptians even though they as a people had suffered nearly 400 years of forced slavery by the Egyptians. They returned and asked them for aid against a common enemy.

Today, the United States plays the role of ‘Egypt’ as the Jews seek its aid and the aid of other godless nations for the purpose of establishing an earthly kingdom contrary to the will of God. It is an antichrist ambition. While so-called “Christian-Zionist” claim this is in honor of Christ, there is no connection or even mention of Jesus Christ by the leaders of Israel. They have denied Christ to be the Messiah and prefer secular rule. Yet, “Christian-Zionist” support them anyway.

It will not succeed. Almighty God stands against it.

His warning to the Israelites recorded in the Bible in Isaiah Chapter 31 applies even more so today:

Isaiah 31:1-9

31 “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord!”

2 “Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.”

3 “Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.”

4 “For thus hath the Lord spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof.”

5 “As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.”

6 “Turn ye unto him from whom the children of Israel have deeply revolted.”

7 “For in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin.”

8 “Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited.”

9 “And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.”

Egypt was not able to circumvent the will of God and calling on the United States will not thwart God’s will or purpose today.

God has a Kingdom and it is a heavenly not an earthly kingdom with Jesus as Lord.

They should heed the words God spoke to the prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 17:5

“Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”

This ‘earthly’ kingdom opposes the ‘true’ Kingdom of God as is therefore anti-Christ in its nature.

Jeremiah 4:1,2
“If you return, Israel— this is the Lord’s declaration— you will return to Me, if you remove your detestable idols from
2 then you can swear, “As the Lord lives,” in truth, in justice, and in righteousness, then the nations will be blessed by Him and will pride themselves in Him”.

Ritual Cleansing – Water Baptism


A Jewish man called Yochanan (John the Baptizer) was baptizing people in the Jordan River in first century Israel, including his cousin who would later become world famous: Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus of Nazareth)


Water Baptism-Ritual Cleansing

Did John the Baptizer Invent Baptism? When, how, and why was the practice begun?

A Jewish man called Yochanan (John the Baptizer) was baptizing people in the Jordan River in first century Israel, including his cousin who would later become world-famous: Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus of Nazareth).

Many Jewish people responded to the call of this Jewish man to immerse themselves in the river as a sign of repentance, and a desire to get right with God. Some of the Pharisees were also among them. Did Yochanan (John the Baptizer) invent baptism at this time? Or was it part of Jewish tradition and practice before that?

No he didn’t, and yes it was.

And the Hebrew word for an immersion pool built for this purpose, “mikveh”, also points us in the right direction in understanding deeper meaning in the practice.

Immersion in Jewish Tradition

The Jewish laws which had been passed down orally from generation to generation had several things to say about the need for ritual washing, and the most desirable places to do it. There are six different options suggested that satisfy the requirements, starting with pits or cisterns of standing water as acceptable but least desirable, moving up to pits that are refreshed by rainwater as slightly more desirable, then the custom-built ritual bath, or “mikveh” with 40 se’ahs (300 liters) or more of water, then fountains, then flowing waters.

But “living waters” (as found in natural lakes and rivers) which were considered to be the best possible situation.

The Mishnah specifies what makes the water clean or unclean, and expresses a preference for a larger, fresher body of water, “For in it persons may immerse themselves and immerse others”.

So Yochanan (John the Baptizer) immersing people in the “Living waters” of the River Jordan was perfectly within Jewish law and practice at the time.

The Essenes, a strict Jewish sect, were doing it too out in the Judean Desert. But why were Jewish people immersing themselves in water? Is baptism in the Jewish Scriptures? Well, sort of, yes.

Ritual Bathing in the Bible

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base also of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. And you shall put water in it, for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in water from it. When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, lest they die. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, lest they die. And it shall be a statute forever to them– to him and his descendants throughout their generations.” Exod 30:17-21

The priests had to be ritually clean (tahor) in order to serve at the tabernacle, and Israelites who had become ritually unclean (tamay) had to restore their situation with the passing of time and bathing their whole body in fresh, ritually clean (tahor) water, according to Leviticus 15.

Later, when the temple had been built, it was necessary for everyone to be immersed in a mikveh to become ritually clean before entering the temple. There are many ancient mikva’ot (plural of mikveh) to be seen in Jerusalem, and it is clear to see the two sets of steps for each one – a set of steps going down to the mikveh in an impure (tamay) state on one side, and on the other side, steps where the pilgrim will emerge fresh and ritually clean (tahor).

What did it look like in the time of Jesus?

Following the upheaval of the 1967 war, archaeologists were presented with the opportunity to excavate parts of the upper city of Jerusalem, giving a new window into daily life in ancient times. Many of the houses were grand and spacious, with their own water cisterns and ritual baths in the basements.[2] Some houses were found to have had several of these mikva’ot, since it is thought that as well as providing for the household (which could even be up to fifty people) they would have been able to welcome and host pilgrims arriving for the Jewish feasts, catering for many more. Many of this upper city aristocracy were among the priestly class, who would have to stay in a state of ritual purity as much as possible, and so would have to immerse themselves in a mikveh frequently. Archaeologists also believe that the pools of Siloam and Bethsaida could have been used for ritual bathing in the Second Temple period for those visiting Jerusalem for the high holy days.

So immersion in a mikveh was quite common at the time of Yeshua, but the New Testament also describes baptisms taking place not only in rivers, but in any available body of water. In Acts 8, we read of a visiting pilgrim from Ethiopia, who came to believe in Yeshua as he read Isaiah on the way home:

“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” (verse 36).

By this point baptism had come to signify a decision to accept Yeshua as Messiah and Lord.

The word “Mikveh”

The Hebrew noun for a ritual bath (mikveh) can help us understand a bit more about the Jewish notion of immersion. Often the Hebrew language reveals keys in the Hebrew thought behind the words. The word mikveh shares the same root as the word for hope (tikvah), for line (kav) and alignment, and the concept of hoping or waiting on God (kiviti l’Adonai).

Here is what Strong’s Lexicon has to say about the word:

מִקְוֶה miqveh, mik-veh’;
something waited for, i.e. confidence (objective or subjective);
also a collection, i.e. (of water) a pond, or (of men and horses) a caravan or drove:—abiding, gathering together, hope, linen yarn, plenty (of water), pool.
and the same root word:

קָוָה qâvâh, kaw-vaw’;
to bind together (perhaps by twisting), i.e. collect; (figuratively) to expect:—gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).

The ideas of binding together, or twisting together, of yarn, gives us a good mental picture of what it means to align ourselves with God, and wait for him. We gather ourselves and bind ourselves to his word and to him, we line ourselves up with him, and wait for him in confidence and hope. When you read that the Psalmist says he waits upon the Lord, this is usually the word he is using.

The linked concepts of mikvah (collected pool of water) and tikvah (hope, confidence) are played out beautifully in Jeremiah 17:5-6, where the prophet poetically expresses the ideas through the metaphor of trees either rooted and flourishing beside water when we trust in God, or drying up for the lack of water when we put our trust in man. A few verses later, Jeremiah summarises:

Lord, you are the hope (mikveh) of Israel; all who forsake you will be ashamed (or dried out).

Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.

This is a word play – the text actually says “The Lord is the MIKVEH of Israel, and all who forsake him will be ashamed or dried out!” So it makes more sense now that Jeremiah continues, to say that when we turn away from this mikveh of water and hope, we will be ashamed, which can also be translated “dried out”. Through this word play, Jeremiah deliberately points us back to the analogy of the man who trusts in God being like a tree beside plenty of water, and the one who leaves God ending up in dry, dusty shame.

A “Mikveh” of living water represents the bounty and resources of the new life that we can enjoy in God. Those who put their hope in God, choosing to align their lives with him, will never be dried out, but will always have fresh life in him.

Next time you see someone being immersed in water to signify their new life in Yeshua, the hope of Israel, the mikveh of Israel, call to mind all that he said about being the water of life, the well of living water that springs up to eternal life… because that’s exactly who He is!

[1] Tractate Mivaoth, Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah 1-8

There are six degrees of gatherings of water, each superior to the other.

The water of pits… The same rules apply to the water of pits, the water of cisterns, the water of ditches, the water of caverns, the water of rain drippings which have stopped, and mikwehs of less than forty se’ahs: they are all clean during the time of rain; when the rain has stopped those near to a city or to a road are unclean, and those distant remain clean until the majority of people pass [that way].

Superior to such [water] is the water of rain drippings which have not stopped.

Superior to such [water] is [the water of] the mikveh containing forty se’ahs, for in it persons may immerse themselves and immerse others.

Superior again is [the water of] a fountain whose own water is little but has been increased by a greater quantity of drawn water; it is equivalent to the mikveh inasmuch as it may render clean by standing water, and to an [ordinary] fountain in as much as one may immerse in it whatever the quantity of its contents.

Superior again are ‘smitten waters’ which can render clean even when flowing.

Superior again are ‘living waters’ which serve for the immersion of persons who have a running issue and for the sprinkling of lepers, and are valid for the preparation of the water of purification.

Reference: https://www.oneforisrael.org/…/was-baptism-originally-jewi…/



Back to top



Studying and Learning the Priesthood of God


“You are to be holy to Me because I, Yahweh, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be Mine”? Leviticus 20:26
Holiness is not merely a spiritual state. Spirituality can be rooted in unholiness. Holiness is keep ones self separate in order to serve in behalf of other.


Studying The Priesthood of God

What did God mean when he said concerning His priesthood, “You are to be holy to Me because I, Yahweh, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be Mine”? Leviticus 20:26

What did Peter mean when counseling first century anointed disciples, “But as the One who called you is holy, you also are to be holy in all your conduct; for it is written, Be holy, because I am holy.” 1Peter 1:15,16

What is the difference between ‘spirituality’ and ‘holiness’?

reference: http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/levitical_priests.htm

The Levitical Priests:

Reaching levels of inspiration and revelation that are not rooted in holiness, as personified by the wicked heathen prophet Balaam, King Balak, and the elders of Moab and Midian, are all equally reprehensible (these practiced various forms of divination and occult arts in order to bring about prophetic revelation.

Their Function and Role in the Holy Temple

“And it shall be for them an appointment as priests forever, for all generations.” (Ex. 40:15)
“For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, him and his sons forever.” (Deut. 18:5)

Who are the Priests?

The first kohen, the founder of the priestly clan, was Aaron, brother of Moses, of the tribe of Levi. All of Israel are descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob’s third son was Levi, and Aaron was a fourth generation descendant of Levi.

Aaron and his four sons were designated as the first priests; Aaron served as the first High Priest. All of his male descendants were chosen by God to be priests forever; it is an eternal covenant. Thus even today, a kohen amongst the Jewish people is genealogically a direct descendant of Aaron.

The Role of the Priests

The Holy One chose these men to be in a position of spiritual leadership. In the days of the Temple, they were responsible for the sacred service. The Hebrew word kohen actually means “to serve,” and a deeper linguistic connection can be found in the word ken, meaning “yes,” itself related to kivvun, “to direct.” Thus a kohen is called upon to direct himself, and others, in the proper service of God: “And you, separate your brother Aaron and his sons from among the Israelites, and bring them close to you… so they can serve me.” (Ex. 28:1)

A Conduit for the Reception of Divine Blessing

The reader is undoubtedly most familiar with the primary role which the priests perform in the Temple, that of officiating at the sacrifices and other parts of the service. But more importantly, by attending to the various aspects of the Divine service, the priests serve as a conduit to bring down God’s radiant blessing and influence into this world. In fact, it is on this account that they are commanded to deliver God’s blessing of peace and love to the people, as well: “Say to Aaron and his sons… Thus shall you bless the people of Israel: ‘May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord shine His face upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the Lord lift up His face to you and may He grant you peace’.” (Numbers 6:22 – 26)

The Priestly Blessing is Delivered Daily in the Temple

Every day in the Temple, at the conclusion of the morning service, this blessing was performed by the officiating priests, standing on the steps leading up to the sanctuary. Thus while it is only God who has the power to bestow blessing upon people, the function of the priests was to serve as a vehicle, a medium, through which the Divine influence may descend.

“… He stands behind our wall… “

This concept of the priests “directing” the flow of Divine blessing is alluded to by a verse in the Song of Songs (2:9 – 10): “Behold, He stands behind our wall, watching through the windows, glancing through the cracks.”

The sages of the Midrash interpret these words to mean that it is God who stands behind the priests as they deliver His blessing. The illumination of His Presence shines through their hands, which are outstretched as they utter the priestly blessing.

The Priests Possess Special Qualities

The priests represent kindness, and the focusing of life’s energies on sanctity and Divine purpose. It was the attribute of kindness, understanding and love for all which Aaron, the first High Priest, was best known for, and his descendants are entrusted to exemplify Hillel’s famous dictum in the Chapters of the Fathers (Avot 1:12): “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving your fellow-creatures, and drawing them near to the Torah.” This quality was highly visible and crucially instrumental following the rebellion of Korach, when it was Aaron who saved the people from the full extent of Divine wrath (see Numbers 17).

Because of their ability to invoke Heavenly influence, the sages even record that the priestly families possess distinctive character traits and qualities which are part of their special spiritual heritage: they are known to be joyful, giving, and driven by a loftier nature. In the era of the Temple, they were praised for their zeal and dedication to fulfill the commandments and give honor to the Creator.

Later, through the ensuing course of history, it was generally the tribe of Levi and the priestly family in particular that were exemplary in their zealousness for the honor of God. Thus it was the priestly family of the Hasmonaim – the famous “Maccabees” – who led the revolt against foreign idolatrous influence and rededicated the Holy Temple, events marked by the holiday of Chanukah.

The daily blessing of the priests in the Temple serves to open the Heavenly gates of mercy. Through it, the people of Israel merit not only material well-being – including offspring and longevity – but spiritual blessings as well; mercy, Divine protection and the greatest blessing of all… true peace. Since the priests themselves represent the attribute of kindness, their service brings the flow of God’s blessing down to His people.

General Rules of Priestly Conduct

The priest must be holy to his God. You must keep him holy, for he presents the offering to your God… He must be holy, for I am God – I am holy and I am making you holy” (Lev. 21).

God Has Sanctified The Priests Above All Men

The Holy One ordained special laws which effect the lives of the priests. The fundamental understanding behind these principles is that the status of the priest is different than that of other men. Their lot is one of dedication, of separation – for they are the servants of the Lord, and the custodians of His service. “… For he presents the offering to your God… ”

Because of this, “… he must be holy, for I am God – I am holy and I am making you holy.” The Creator has sanctified these men above the rest for all time, and drawn them to Himself through unique commandments.

Overview

These laws are recorded in the book of Leviticus, and by way of an introduction, let us examine the verse quoted above. The priests are expected and commanded to keep holy… but what is meant by “holiness?” What is the Bible’s intention?

“He must be holy, for I, God, am holy.” How are we to understand this state of holiness? How can we best explain such a concept? It seems intangible at best – for in the context of this verse, it seems that the priest is called upon to be holy in the same sense that God Himself is holy.

It would surely be instructive at this point for us to attempt a definition for the word “holy.” For we can see that the Bible uses this word quite emphatically in the context of the priests: they are actually mandated to be holy, to lead holy lives, because God is holy. But how can a person be holy like God?

Many people seem to equate the concept of holiness with spirituality in general; anything ethereal or mystical is presumed to be holy. According to this mentality, one supposes that holiness is a matter of secret knowledge, or simply a question of allegiance to any proscribed ritual claimed by its adherents to bring the devotee closer to fulfillment.

To Be Spiritual Does Not Automatically Imply Holiness

This is a serious misconception, one which is completely out of tune with the Biblical idea of holiness as exemplified by the “holiness” which is expected and required of Aaron’s descendants. For holy and spiritual are not the same things and they are certainly not equal.

Consulting Webster’s Dictionary, we find that the word “spiritual” is derived from the Latin spiritualis, “of breathing; of wind; relating to or consisting of spirit.” Thus: “INCORPOREAL,” (fortunately, we are also given “of or relating to sacred matters,”) and since the primary meaning of this word seems to be that which is non-physical, we end with “of or relating to ghosts or similar supernatural beings(!)”

Thus many people, disciplines, philosophies and the like may be considered spiritual in nature, they may concern themselves with the esoteric, they may even occupy themselves with the service of God – but this does not necessarily imply that they are holy in any way.

Forbidden Spiritual Pursuits

In fact, some spiritual paths can most definitely be the absolute epitome of unholiness:

The Bible is clear in its prohibition of spiritualism which has not been authorized by God. “Do not act on the basis of omens… do not act on the basis of auspicious times” (Lev. 19:26), we are warned. These forbidden practices include one who acts on the basis of a superstitious omen, and those who seek out auspicious times through astrology.

When the Children of Israel were preparing to end their desert wanderings and enter into the Promised Land, they were specifically warned by God to uproot the perverted spiritual practices of the former inhabitants from the land, and to be particularly cautious not to be tempted to experiment with mystical occult practices. “When the Lord your God excises the nations to which you are coming, and drives them away before you, you shall dispossess them and live in their land. Be very careful not to fall into a trap by following after them, after they have been wiped out from before you. Do not try to find out about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations worship their gods? I would also like to try this.’ Do not worship the Lord your God with such practices. In worshipping their gods, these nations committed all manner of perversions hated by the Lord… ” (Deut. 12:29 – 31).

Reaching levels of inspiration and revelation that are not rooted in holiness, as personified by the wicked heathen prophet Balaam, King Balak, and the elders of Moab and Midian, are all equally reprehensible (these practiced various forms of divination and occult arts in order to bring about prophetic revelation. See Numbers 22).

So, while other nations may have their own routes to connect with the “Divine,” or their own conception thereof; or, perhaps they merely delude themselves and others into thinking that they are serving God, and the side of holiness – clearly, the Torah’s prohibitions instruct Israel that these other ways are not for her. There may be other paths of spirituality, but they are not for Israel; she is to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6).

But we have not yet come any closer to an understanding of the priests’ exhortation to live holy lives “because God is holy;” neither have we come any closer to a grasp on how an individual can be holy like God. If God is incorporeal, if God is spirit, is a man therefore commanded to be spirit? Spirituality is clearly a separate concept, and one that is not necessarily pure, at that.

Holiness Means Separation

By contrast to the concept of “spiritual” – which seems to be rather unstable for our liking, since it can actually apply to things quite far from all which we have considered sacred – we find that the primary definition of “holy” is “set apart to the service of God.”

God Himself is called holy because He is completely separate; unique and unequaled in all of His creation. Nothing can be compared to Him because He is peerless; He is the Creator of the universe and all existence, and absolutely different from anything else that exists. It is in this light that Israel is collectively called upon to be a “holy nation” – that is, a nation set apart from all others, completely different from any other, whose Divinely-mandated lifestyle serves as living proof that an entire nation can walk with God in its midst… “it is a nation dwelling alone in peace; not counting itself among other nations” (Numbers 23:9).

This separation is the true Biblical view of holiness. This is why the opposite of something holy is said to be mundane or profane; ordinary. To be holy is to be removed from the realm of the ordinary. Israel lives separately, according to the Torah’s commandments, precisely because God is separate… for the highest form of religious experience is to reflect, to imitate the Divine. Man must strive to be a reflection of his Creator.

So too, the priests in the Holy Temple “must be holy for I, God, am holy.” If Jewish life is to be holy, then the priests must take care to be especially holy. They have been distinctively sanctified by the Creator Himself for all time and singled out for a life dedicated to Him. The vehicle that accomplishes this sanctification is the commandments, which obligate them to their Creator. These commandments reflect their unique status.



Back to top



Are You Being Prepared For God’s Priesthood?


Serving in the priesthood of God requires complete devotion to learning its discipline and order.



For anyone to seriously consider themselves chosen to serve as a priest under High Priest Jesus Christ, they should be eager to learn about what it is a priest does. The only method to understand what God and Christ expect is by examining the pattern of the priesthood God established as His example of what is required.

It is reasonable to believe that anyone with that prospect held before them would be consumed with gaining and growing in an understanding of what the role is about and its disciplines. All called to the priesthood in God’s arrangement with Israel were both well-trained and well-disciplined in proper ritual conduct.

The following article from the Jewish Encyclopedia offers insight into understanding the life and service functions of a priest of God.

Laymen as Priests-The Priestly Code

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12358-priest

—Biblical Data:
One consecrated to the service of the sanctuary and, more particularly, of the altar. This definition, however, holds true rather for the later than for the earlier stages of Hebrew priesthood. In ancient Israel one was not required to be specially consecrated in order to perform the sacrificial functions; any one might approach the altar and offer sacrifices. Thus Gideon, of the tribe of Manasseh (Judges vi. 26 et seq.), and the Danite Manoah (ib. xiii. 16, 19) sacrificed in person at the express command of God and the angel of God respectively; similarly, David sacrificed on the altar he had built at God’s command on the thrashing-floor of Araunah (II Sam. xxiv. 25); and Solomon, before the ark in Jerusalem (I Kings iii. 15). David, on the occasion of the transference of the Ark to Zion, and Solomon, at the dedication of the Temple of Jerusalem, ministered as priests (II Sam. vi. 14, 17, 18;. I Kings viii. 22, 54 el seq.); the latter continued to personally offer sacrifices on the altar of Yhwh at regular intervals (I Kings ix. 25). Similar instances, in later times, are presented by Elijah, sacrificing on Mount Carmel (I Kings xviii. 32 et seq.), and by Ahaz, in the Temple at Jerusalem (II Kings xvi. 12 et seq.).

In accordance with this usage in ancient Israel, the ordinances contained in the Book of the Covenant, the oldest code, concerning the building of altars and the offering of sacrifices are addressed not to the priest, but to the people at large (Ex. xx. 24-26). Even where there was a sanctuary with a priesthood, as at Shiloh, any layman might slaughter and offer his sacrifices without priestly aid (comp. I Sam. ii. 13-16). As access to the altar was not yet guarded in accordance with later Levitical ordinances, so the priesthood was not yet confined to one family, or even to one tribe. The Ephraimite Samuel became priest of the sanctuary at Shiloh, wearing the priestly linen coat (“efod bad”) and the pallium (I Sam. ii. 18 et seq., iii. 1). The kings of Israel ordained as priest whomever they chose (I Kings xli. 31); David, too, invested his own sons, as well as the Jairite Ira, of the tribe of Manasseh, with the priestly office (II Sam. viii. 18, xx. 26).

Functions of the Priest.
If a distinct established priesthood is nevertheless found at the sanctuary of Shiloh and at that of Dan as early as the time of the Judges, it is obvious that its real office can not have been connected with the altar or the sacrifices, and that, consequently, its origin can not be looked for in the sacrificial functions. Wherein the origin of the Israelitish priest-hood really lies is sufficiently apparent from the older Biblical records of the time of the Judges and the following period. According to these, the functions of the priest were twofold: to care for and guard the sanctuary and its sacred images and palladia, and (of still greater importance) to consult the oracle. Thus the Ephraimite Micah, after having provided an ephod and teraphim (see Ephod) for his shrine, installed one of his sons as priest to take care of them, but only until he could secure a professional priest, a Levite, for the purpose, one who was qualified to consult the oracle (Judges xvii. 5-13). (a mediator with God)

It is evident that not the shrine, but the images it sheltered, were the essential thing. These it was that the migrating Danites coveted and carried off to their new home, together with the priest, who had consulted the oracle in behalf of their exploring party with auspicious results (ib. xviii.). The sacred palladium of the sanctuary at Shiloh was the ARK, over which the sons of Eli and Samuel kept guard. The former carried it when it was taken to the battle-field, while the latter, having special charge of the doors, slept nightly near it (I Sam, iii. 3, 15; iv. 4 et seq.). When, later, the ark was returned from the field of the Philistines and brought to the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, Abinadab’s son Eleazar was at once consecrated guardian over it (ib. vii. 1). The bearing of the ark, with which, at Shiloh, the sons of Eli were entrusted, remained, as the frequent statements to this effect in later Biblical literature show, a specific priestly function throughout pre-exilic times (comp. Deut. x. 8, xxxi. 9; Josh. iii. 6 et seq., iv. 9 et seq., vi. 12, viii. 33; I Kings viii. 3). After the capture of its ark by the Philistines the sanctuary of Shiloh disappeared from history (its destruction is referred to in Jer. vii. 12, 14; xxvi. 6); its priesthood, however, appeared in the following period at the sanctuary of Nob, which also had an ephod (I Sam. xiv. 3; xxi. 1, 10; xxii. 9, 11).

After the massacre of the priesthood of Nob, Abiathar, who was the sole survivor, fied with the ephod to David (ib. xxiii. 6), whom thenceforward he accompanied on all his military expeditions, bearing the ephod in order to consult the oracle for him whenever occasion demanded (ib. xxiii. 9, xxx. 7). Similarly, in the campaign against the Philistines, Ahiah accompanied Saul and the Israclites, “bearing the ephod” and ascertaining for them the decisions of the oracle (ib. xiv. 3, 18, the latter verse being so read by the LXX.). The priests’ duty of guarding the sanctuary and its sacred contents accounts for the use, in pre-exilic times, of “shomer hasaf,””doorkeeper” (corresponding to the Arabic “sadin”), as synonymous with “kohen” (II Kings xii. 10), and explains also how “shamar” and “sheret” became the technical terms of priestly service and were retained as such even after the nature of the service had materially changed.

Door-keepers.
To fill the office of doorkeeper no special qualification was necessary, but, as hinted above, to consult the oracle required special training, such as, no doubt, could be found only among professional priests. So, though the doorkeepers were in many cases not of priestly lineage (comp., besides the case of Samuel and of Eleazar of Kirjath-jearim, that of Obededom; II Sam. vi. 10 et seq.), those who consulted the oracle were invariably of priestly descent, a fact which makes it seem highly probable that the art of using and interpreting the oracle was handed down from father to son. In this way, no doubt, hereditary priesthood developed, as indicated by the cases of the sons of Eli at Shiloh and Nob, and of Jonathan and his descendants at Dan, both these priestly houses extending back to the very beginning of Israelitish history. The descendants of Jonathan made express claim to lineal descent from Moses (comp. I Sam. ii. 27; Judges xviii. 30; the reading “Menashshch” in Judges xviii. 30 is, as the suspended נ shows, due to a later change of the original “Mosheh,” a change which is frankly acknowledged in B. B. 109b; comp. also Rashi and Ḳimḥi ad loc., and to ib. xvii. 7); in fact, their claim is supported by Ex. xxxiii. 7-11, according to which not Aaron, but Moses, was the priest of the “tent of meeting” (R. V.) in the wilderness, while Joshua kept constant guard over it.

Interpreters of the Law.
“Whosoever had to consult God went out to the tent of meeting,” where Moses ascertained the will of God; and just as Moses, in his capacity of priest, was the intermediary through whom Yhwh revealed the Torah to the Israelites in the wilderness, and through whom His judgment was invoked in all difficult cases, such as could not be adjusted without reference to this highest tribunal (Ex. xviii. 16 et seq.), so the priests, down to the close of pre-exilic times, were the authoritative interpreters of the Law, while the sanctuaries were the seats of judgment.

Thus the Book of the Covenant prescribes that all dubious criminal cases “be brought before God,” that is, be referred to Him by the priest for decision (Ex. xxii.7, 8). That “Elohim” here means “God” (not, as the A. V. translates, “the judges”) is clear from I Sam. xiv. 36, where the same phrase, “niḳrab el Elohim” is applied to consulting the oracle by means of the Urim and Thummim (comp. the following verses, 37-42, the last two verses as read by the LXX.). The urim and thummim were employed together with the ephod in consulting the oracle, the former, as may be inferred from the description in I Sam. xiv. 41, 42, being a kind of sacred lots: in all probability they were cast before the ephod. Josh. vii. 14 and I Sam. ii. 25 may be cited in further proof of the fact that direct appeal to divine judgment was made in ancient Israel. This primitive custom is reflected even in as late a passage as Prov. xviii. 18. The Blessing of Moses proves that the sacred lots continued to be cast by the priests during the time of the monarchy, inasmuch as it speaks of the urim and thummim as insignia of the priesthood (Deut. xxxiii. 8). This document shows, as does also the Deuteronomic code, that throughout pre-exilic times the expounding of the Torah and the administration of justice remained the specific functions of the priests. It declares that the priests are the guardians of God’s teachings and Law, and that it is their mission to teach God’s judgments and Torah to Israel (Deut. xxxiii. 9, 10), while the Deuteronomic code decrees that all difficult criminal as well as civil cases be referred to the priests (ib. xvii. 8-11, xxi. 5). Further proof to the same effect lies in the frequent references of the Prophets to the judicial and teaching functions of the priesthood (comp. Amos ii. 8; Hos. iv. 6; Isa. xxviii. 7; Micah iii. 11; Jer. ii. 8, xviii. 18; Ezek. vii. 26).

Offering of the Sacrifices.
In addition to the duties thus far discussed, the offering of sacrifices, in the time of the monarchy, must have become the office of the priest, since the Blessing of Moses mentions it with the other priestly functions. No direct information is obtainable from the Biblical records as to the conditions and influences which brought this about, but it may be safely assumed that one of the factors leading thereto was the rise of the royal sanctuaries. In these, daily public sacrifices were maintained by the king (comp. II Kings xvi. 15), and it must certainly have been the business of the priests to attend to them. There is evidence also that among the priests of Jerusalem there were, at least in later pre-exilic times, gradations of rank. Besides the “chief priest” (“kohen ha-rosh”) mention is made of the “kohen mishnch,” the one holding the second place (II Kings xxv. 18 et al.).

As yet, however, it seems apparent that the priest-hood was not confined to one particular branch of the family of Levi, but, as both the Blessing of Moses and the Deuteronomic code state, was the heritage of the whole tribe (comp. Deut. x. 8, 9; xviii. 1 et seq., 5; xxxiii. 8-10; Josh. xviii, 7). This explains why, in the Deuteronomic code, the whole tribe of Levi has a claim to the altar-gifts, the first-fruits, and the like, and to the dues in kind from private sacrifices (Deut. xviii. 1-5), while in Ezekiel and the Priestly Code the Levites have no share therein. It explains also how it comes that, not only in Judges xvii. (see above), but throughout pre-exilic literature, the terms “Levite” and “priest” are used synonymously (comp. Deut. xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1; xxi. 8; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9; Josh. iii. 3; Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21: the only exception is I Kings viii. 4, where, however, as the parallel text, H Chron. v. 5, shows, the ו of is a later insertion).

Levites and Priests.
Since, in pre-exilic times, the whole tribe of Levi was chosen “to stand before Yhwh in order to minister unto Him,” It is but consistent that the office “of blessing in Yhwh’s name” (which in the Priestly Code is assigned to Aaron and his sons—Num. vi. 23) should, in the Deuteronomic code, pertain to all the Levites (comp. Deut. x. 8, xxi. 8). A very strong proof that all membersof the Levitical tribe were entitled to priesthood is furnished in the provision which was made by the Deuteronomic code for those Levites who were scattered through the country as priests of the local sanctuaries, and who, in consequence of the Deuteronomic reformation, had been left without any means of support. It stipulated that those Levites who desired to enter the ranks of the priesthood of Jerusalem should be admitted to equal privileges with their brethren the Levites who ministered there unto God, and should share equally with them the priestly revenues (Deut. xviii. 6-8). As a matter of fact, however, this provision was not carried out. The priests of Jerusalem were not willing to accord to their brethren of the local sanctuaries the privileges prescribed by Deuteronomy, and although they granted them support from the priestly dues, they did not allow them to minister at the altar (comp. II Kings xxiii. 8, 9). In this way the Deuteronomic reformation marks, after all, the first step toward the new development in the priesthood in exilic and post-exilic times.

The attitude of the priests of Jerusalem toward those of the local sanctuaries was sanctioned by Ezekiel. In his book (and later in II Chron. xxxi. 10) the priesthood of Jerusalem is called “bene Ẓadoḳ” or “the house of Zadok,” after Zadok, who replaced Abiathar, Eli’s descendant, when Abiathar, because of his partizanship for Adonijah, was deposed by Solomon (comp. I Kings ii. 27, 35). Ezekiel ordained that of all the Levite priests only the Zadokites, who had ministered to God in His legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem, should be admitted to the service of the altar; the rest, who had defiled themselves by officiating at the local sanctuaries, should be degraded to the position of mere servants in the sanctuary, replacing the foreign Temple attendants who had heretofore performed all menial services (Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 6-16). Naturally, the altar-gifts, the tribute of the first-fruits, and the like, were to be awarded thenceforward to the Zadokites alone (xliv. 29, 30). Though Ezekiel assigns to the priests the duty of sitting in judgment in legal disputes, as before (xliv. 24), he makes their ritual functions, not their judicial functions, the essential point in his regulations governing the priests. Administering the Law, according to him, extends only to matters of ritual, to the distinctions between holy and profane, clean and unclean, and to the statutory observance of Sabbaths and festivals (xliv. 23, 24).

The Priestly Code.
Ezekiel’s new regulations formed, in all essentials, the basis of the post-exilic priestly system which is formulated in detail in the Priestly Code. A striking difference between Ezekiel and the Priestly Code, however, is at once evident in that the latter betrays no idea of the historical development of things. Whereas Ezekiel records the old usage and, by virtue of his authority as a prophet, declares it abolished, the Priestly Code recognizes only the new order of things introduced by Ezekiel, which order it dates back to the time of Moses, alleging that from the very first the priest-hood had been confined to Aaron and his sons, while the mass of the Levites had been set apart as their ministers to fill the subordinate offices of the sanctuary (comp. Ex. xxviii. 1; Num. i. 48 et seq.; iii. 3-10; viii. 14, 19, 24-26; xviii. 1-7; I Chron. vi. 33 et seq.). The priestly genealogy of I Chron. v. 29-41 and vi. 35-38 was but the logical result of this transference of post-exilic conditions back to the period of the wandering in the wilderness. This genealogy, the purpose of which was to establish the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood, represents the Zadokites as the lineal descendants of Phinehas (the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron), who, for his meritorious action in the case of Zimri, according to Num. xxv. 10-13, had been promised the priesthood as a lasting heritage. That this genealogy and that of I Chron. xxiv. 1-6, in which the descent of the Elite Abiathar is traced from Aaron’s son Ithamar, are fictitious is evident from the fact that they conflict with the authentic records of the books of Samuel and Kings: (1) they know nothing of the priesthood of Eli; (2) Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, and father of Ahimelech of Nob (comp. I Sam. xiv. 3; xxii. 9, 11), appears in them as the son of an unknown Amariah and the father of Zadok; (3) contrary to I Kings ii. 27, 35 (see above), Abiathar and his descendants remain priests at the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Priestly Orders.
Regarding the characteristic attribution of postexilic conditions to pre-exilic times, a notable example may be pointed out in Chron. xxiii.-xxvi. Both priests and Levites were, in post-exilic times, divided into twenty-four families or classes, with a chief (called “rosh” or “sar”; comp. especially I Chron. xv. 4-12; xxiii. 8 et seq.; xxiv. 5, 6, 31; Ezra viii. 29) at the head of each. The institution of this system, as well as of other arrangements, is, in the passage cited, ascribed to David.

The prominence which the ritual receives in Ezekiel reaches its culmination in the Priestly Code, where the judicial functions of the priest, formerly much emphasized, have given way altogether to the ritualistic. To minister at the altar and to guard the sanctity of Israel, which means practically the sanctity of the sanctuary, constitute from this time on the priest’s exclusive office. For this purpose, it is pointed out, God chose Aaron and his sons, distinguishing them from the rest of the Levites, and bid them consecrate themselves to their office (comp. Ex. xxviii. 1, 41-43; xxix. 1, 30, 33, 37, 43-46; xxx. 20, 29 et seq.; Lev. i.-vii., xiii. et seq., xvii. 5 et seq.; Num. vi. 16 et seq., xvi. 5-11, xviii. 3-7; I Chron. xxiii. 13; II Chron. xxvi. 18). Any one not of priestly descent was forbidden, under penalty of death, to offer sacrifice, or even to approach the altar (Num. xvii. 1-5, xviii. 7). As the guardians of Israel’s sanctity the priests formed a holy order (comp. Lev. xxi. 6-8), and for the purpose of protecting them against all profanation and Levitical defilement they were hedged about with rules and prohibitions. They were forbidden to come in contact with dead bodies, except in the case of their nearest kin, nor were they permitted to perform the customary mourning rites (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 1-5; Ezek. xliv. 20, 25). They were not allowed to marry harlots, nor dishonored or divorced women (Lev. xxi. 7).They were required to abstain from wine and all strong drink while performing sacerdotal duties (Lev. x. 9; Ezek. xliv. 21). Any priest having incurred Levitical defilement was excluded, under penalty of death, from priestly service and from partaking of holy food during the time of his uncleanness (Lev. xxii. 2-7, 9; Ezek. xliv. 26 et seq.). If afflicted with any bodily blemish the priest was held permanently unfit for service; such a one was, however, permitted to eat of the holy food (Lev. xxi. 17-23).

A noteworthy feature of the post-exilic priestly system is the place which the high priest occupies in it, for which see High Priest.

Bibliography:
Baudissin, Gesch. des Alttestamentlichen Priestertums, 1889;
Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, 1894, pp. 405-428;
Nowack. Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäogic. 1894, il. 87-130:
Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Gesch. Isracls, 1899, pp. 118-165.
To Make Atonement.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
The status of the priesthood in later Judaism and the views that prevailed concerning it were in full accordance with the Priestly Code. Like the latter (comp.Ex. xxix. 42-46; Lev. ix. et seq.; xv. 15, 30-33; xvi.; Num. vi. 27; Zech. iii. 7; Mal. ii. 7), later Judaism saw in the sanctuary the manifestation of God’s presence among His people, and in the priest the vehicle of divine grace, the mediator through whose ministry the sins of the community, as of the individual, could be atoned for. In Yoma 39b and Lev. R. i. (where Zech. xi. 1 is taken as referring to the Temple) the name “Lebanon” (= “white one”) for the Temple is explained by the fact that through the Temple Israel is cleansed from its sins. That the chief purpose of altar and priesthood is to make atonement for, and effect the forgiveness of, sin is stated again and again in Talmud and Midrash (comp. Ber. 55a; Suk. 55b; Ket. 10b; Zeb. 85b; Lev. R. xvi. 2; Tan. to Ex. xxvii. 2; Yalḳ. ii. 565). Even the priestly garments were supposed to possess efficacy in atoning for sin (Zeb. 85b; Yalḳ. i. 108). According to the rabbinical decision, “the priests were the emissaries, not of the people, but of God”; hence, a person who had sworn that he would not accept a service from a priest might nevertheless employ him to offer sacrifices and might make atonement for sin through him (Yoma 19a; Ned. iv. 3; 35b; Ḳid. 23b).

Importance of Pedigree.
Later Judaism enforced rigidly the laws relating to the pedigrees of priests, and even established similar requirements for the women they married. Proof of a spotless pedigree was absolutely necessary for admission to priestly service, and any one unable beyond all doubt to establish it was excluded from the priesthood (comp. Ket. 13a, b, 14a, 23a, b, 27a, b; Ḳid. 73a, b; Maimonides, “Yad,” Issure Biah, xx. 2, 16; Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 3, 6, 7). Unless a woman’s pedigree was known to be unimpeachable, a priest, before marrying her, was required to examine it for four generations on both sides, in case she was of priestly lineage; for five generations if she was not of priestly descent (Ḳid. iv. 4, 5; 77a, b; “Yad,” l.c. xix. 18; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 2, 3). How scrupulously such examinations were made may be seen from the observations of Josephus regarding this custom (“Contra Ap,” i., § 7). In addition to the persons enumerated in Lev. xxi. 7, the Talmudic law enjoined the priest even from marrying a ḥaluẓah (see ḤALIẒAH). In a dubious case of ḥaluẓah, however, the priest was not obliged to annul his marriage, as he was in the case of a woman excluded by the Levitical law; nor were the sons born of such a marriage debarred from the priesthood (comp. Yeb. vi. 2; 54a; Soṭah iv. 1; Ḳid. iv. 6; Sifra, Emor, i. 2; “Yad,” l.c. xvii. 1, 7; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 6, 1). Neither might a priest marry a proselyte or a freedwoman. Regarding a daughter of such persons, opinion in the Mishnah is divided as to whether or not it was necessary that one of the parents should be of Jewish descent. The decision of later authorities was that, in case both of the woman’s parents were proselytes or freed persons, a priest should not marry her, but if he had done so, then the marriage should be considered legitimate (Bik. i. 5; Yeb. vi. 5; 60a, 61a; Ḳid. iv. 7; 78b; “Yad,” l.c. xviii. 3, xix. 12; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 6, 8; 7, 21).

Contact with Dead Prohibited.
The Levitical law which forbids the priest to defile himself by coming in contact with a dead body is minutely defined in the Talmud on the basis of Num. xix. 11, 14-16. Not only is direct contact with the dead prohibited, but the priest is forbidden to enter any house or enclosure, or approach any spot, where is lying or is buried a dead body, or any part of a dead body—even a piece of the size of an olive—or blood to the amount of half a “log” (about a quarter of a liter); he is forbidden also to touch any one or anything that is unclean through contact with the dead (comp. Sifra, Emor, i. 1, ii. 1; Naz. vii. 2, 4; 42b, 43a, 47b, 48b, 56a, b; Yer. Naz. 56c, d; “Yad,” Bi’at ha-Miḳdash, iii. 13-15; ib. Ebel, iii.; Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De’ah, 369, 371). In contradistinction to Lev. xxi. 2-4, the Talmudic law includes the wife among the persons of immediate relationship. It specifies, moreover, that it is the duty of the priest to defile himself for the sake of his deceased wife or, in fact, for any of his immediate kin, and that compulsion must be used in the case of any priest who refuses to do so, as in the case of the priest Joseph on the occasion of his wife’s death (Sifra, l.c.; M. Ḳ. 20b; Yeb. 22b, 90b; Naz. 47b, 48a, b; Zeb. 100a; “Yad,” Ebel, ii.; Yoreh De’ah, 373).

But even while occupied in burying a relative, the priest may not come in contact with other dead bodies (“Yad,” l.c. ii. 15; Yoreh De’ah, 373, 7). The Talmud prescribes, further, that if any priest, even the high priest, finds a corpse by the wayside, and there be no one in the vicinity who can be called upon to inter it, he himself must perform the burial: the technical term referring to such a case is “met miẓwah” (comp. Sifra, Emor, ii. 1; Naz. vii. 1; 43b, 47b, 48b; “Yad,” l.c. iii. 8; Yoreh De’ah, 374, 1, 2). Finally, the Talmud permits and indeed orders the priest to defile himself in the case of the death of a nasi; it relates that when Judah ha-Nasi died the priestly laws concerning defilement through contact with the dead were suspended for the day of his death (Yer. Ber. iii. 6a; Yer. Naz. vii. 56a, Ket. 103b; “Yad,” l.c. iii. 10; Yoreh De’ah, 374, 11).

Bodily Defects Incapacitate.
The Talmudic law also specifies minutely what constitutes a bodily defect sufficient to render the subject unfit for priestly service. Bek. vii. and Sifra, Emor, iii. enumerate 142 cases; whether the defect is permanent or only temporary is not taken into account (comp. Zeb. xii. 1; 102a, b; “Yad,” Bi’at ha-Miḳdash, vi.-viii.; Philo, “De Monarchia,” ii. 5; Josephus, “Ant.” iii. 12, § 2).

The division of the priests into twenty-four classes, mentioned in Chronicles, continued down to the destruction of the Second Temple, as statements to this effect by Josephus (“Ant.” vii. 14, § 7; “Vita,” § 1) and the Talmudic sources show. These divisions took turns in weekly service, changing every Sabbath, but on the festivals all twenty-four were present in the Temple and took part in the service. These twenty-four divisions or classes were subdivided, according to their numbers, into from five to nine smaller groups, each of which was assigned to service in turn. The main divisions were called “mishmarot,” the subdivisions “batte abot” (terms which in Chronicles are used interchangeably). There was a chief at the head of each main division, and also one at the head of each subdivision (Ta’an. ii. 6, 7; iv. 2; 27a, b; Yer. Ta’an. 68a; Tosef., Ta’an. ii.; Suk. v. 6-8; 25a, b, et al.; ‘Ar. 12b; Yoma iii. 9, iv. 1; Yer. Hor. iii.; 48b).

The Segan.
Besides the various chiefs, the Talmudic sources frequently mention also the “segan” as an official of high rank. As early as Tosef., Yoma, i. 6; Yoma 39a, Naz. 47b, and Soṭah 42a the view is found that the segan was appointed for the purpose of serving as substitute for the high priest on the Day of Atonement in case the high priest should incur Levitical defilement. Schürer (“Gesch.” 3d ed., ii. 265) rightly points out, however, that this view is erroneous, since, according to the statement in Yoma i. 1, it was customary every year, seven days before the Day of Atonement, to appoint a priest to perform the service on that day in case the high priest should become Levitically unclean; and there would have been no need for such an appointment if, in the person of the segan, a permanent provision existed for such an emergency. (Further reference to this custom is found in Yoma 12b; Tosef., Yoma, i.) Conclusive proof of Schürer’s argument may be found in the fact that in Sanh. 19a the priest appointed as the high priest’s potential substitute for the Day of Atonement is called “mashuaḥ she-‘abar” (anointed one that has been retired), and is clearly distinguished from the segan. The passage reads: “If the high priest offers consolation the segan and the mashuaḥ she-‘abar stand at his right hand, and the chief of the ‘bet ab,’ with the mourners and the rest of the people, at his left hand. . . . And if he receives consolation the segan stands at his right hand, and the chief of the bet ab, with all the people, at his left; the mashuaḥ she-‘abar, however, is not admitted for fear the high priest, in the excitement of his grief, might think that he looked with complacency on his bereavement.”

The name “mashuaḥ she-‘abar” is to be accounted for by the fact (stated in Tosef., Yoma, i.; Yer. Yoma i., 38a, and Yoma 12b, and illustrated by the case of Jose ben Illem) that a substitute who has actually taken the place of the high priest on the Day of Atonement may not thereafter perform the services of an ordinary priest; neither may he aspire to the high-priesthood. In the light of this statement it can readily be understood why Meg. i. 9 calls the temporary substitute of the high priest “Kohen she-‘abar.” The names “mashuaḥ she-‘abar” and “Kohen she-‘abar” are in themselves proof of Schürer’s assertion, inasmuch as the office of the segan was a permanent one. But apart from this negative evidence, which merely shows that the segan was not identical with the mashuaḥ she’abar, there is (contrary to Schürer, l.c. ii. 264) positive evidence in the Talmudic sources to show that his real office was identical with that of the latter. Thus, in the baraita Sanh. 19a, quoted above, the title “Segan” is used to designate the “memunneh” spoken of in the preceding mishnah (ii. 1), a circumstance which would point to the conclusion drawn by the Gemara (ib.) that the segan and the memunneh were identical. This conclusion is, in fact, corroborated by Mishnah Tamid, where the titles “segan” and “memunneh” are used interchangeably. There can be no doubt that in Mishnah Tamid iii. 1-3, v. 1-2, vi. 3, vii. 3 these titles refer to one and the same official, whose office is described in great detail—the office, namely, of superintendent of the whole Temple service. Note especially vi. 3 and vii. 3, which define the duty of the superintending priest when the high priest offers incense or sacrifice: in vi. 3 this official is called” memunneh”; in vii. 3, “Segan.”

It may logically be inferred from these passages that the duties ascribed to the segan on the Day of Atonement in Yoma iii. 9, iv. 1, vii. 1 were a regular part of his office as superintendent of the service. Indeed, this is borne out by Yer. Yoma iii., 41a, where, together with the Day of Atonement duties of the segan that are specified in the Mishnah, is mentioned that of waving a flag as a signal to the Levites to join in with their singing, the giving of which signal, according to Mishnah Tamid vii. 3, was a regular feature of the segan’s daily official routine. The fact that the segan had to act as superintendent of the service even on the Day of Atonement fully precludes the idea that he could ever have been appointed substitute for the high priest for that day.

Considering the importance of such a position of superintendence, some weight must be attached to the statement in Yer. Yoma (l.c.) that “no one was appointed high priest unless he had previously occupied the office of segan.” It substantiates, at least, the conclusion drawn by Schürer (ib.) from the fact that the segan invariably appears at the right hand of the high priest (comp. the baraita Sanh. 19a, quoted above)—the conclusion, namely, that the segan was the next in rank to the high priest. Schürer is probably correct, too, in pointing out (ib.) that the segan is identical with the στρατηγóς τοῦ ἱεροῡ, frequently mentioned by Josephus and in the New Testament.

Other Officials.
Other important officials were the “gizbarim” (treasurers), who had charge of the Temple property, and the “amarkelin” (a word of Persian origin,meaning “cashier”), who probably shared the duties of the gizbarim (comp. Josephus, “Ant.” xiv. 7, § 1; xv. 11, § 4; xviii. 4, § 3; Peah i. 6, ii. 8, iv. 8; Shek. ii. 1; v. 2, 6; Me’i. iii. 8; Men. viii. 2, 7; et al.). Yer. Sheḳ. v., 49c, mentions also the “ḳaṭolikin” (καθολικοι), placing them in rank before the amarkelin.

According to Talmudic law, the regulations demanding an unimpeachable pedigree and relating to Levitical defilement continued to be binding on the priest, even after the Temple had been destroyed, in order that he might be fit for priestly service when, on the advent of the Messiah, the Temple would be rebuilt and the service of the altar renewed. Any one not complying with these requirements is not allowed to give the priestly blessing, the pronouncing of which remained the duty of the priest, according to Talmudic law, even after the destruction of the Temple (see Blessing, Priestly). Talmudic law prescribes further that the honor of being first called upon for the reading of the Torah should belong to the priest (comp. “Yad,” Issure Biah, xx. 13; ib. Tefillah, xiv., xv.; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 3, 1; Oraḥ. Ḥayyim, 128; 135, 3, 4; Soṭah 38b; Giṭ. v. 8; see, however, Hor. iii. 8).

Bibliography:
Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 225-279;
Carpzow, Apparatus Historio-Criticus Antiquitatum Sacri Codicis;
Haneberg, Die Religiösen Altertümer der Bibel;
Lightfoot, Ministerium Templi Quale Erat Tempore Nostri Salvatoris;
Lundius. Die Alten Jüdischen Heiligtümer, Gottesdienste und Gewohnheiten, etc.:
Selden. De Successione in Pontificatum Ebrœorum;
Ugolini, Saccrdotium Hebraicum.



Back to top