• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

OT ritual by Jesus and his disciples is missing in the New Testament prior to crucifixion. Why?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It struck me as strange that there are no accounts of Jesus or his disciples making animal offerings at the temple.

The old covenant was still in effect because Jesus hadn't ascended yet and from my understanding it is taken that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.

I found it strange that it's conspicuously missing. You would think that animal offerings would be accounted for in the New Testament narrative prior to the crucifixion by Jesus and the disciples.

What do you think the reason is that something as importiant as making offerings to God at the temple, mentioned many times in the Canon, is never mentioned or ommited throughout the entirety of the New Testament ?

They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?

Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It struck me as strange that there are no accounts of Jesus or his disciples making animal offerings at the temple.

The old covenant was still in effect because Jesus hadn't ascended yet and from my understanding it is taken that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.

I found it strange that it's conspicuously missing. You would think that animal offerings would be accounted for in the New Testament narrative prior to the crucifixion by Jesus and the disciples.

What do you think the reason is that something as importiant as making offerings to God at the temple, mentioned many times in the Canon, is never mentioned or ommited throughout the entirety of the New Testament ?

They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?

Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?
I believe it is mentioned in Acts, when the Apostles ask Paul to join them giving a sacrifice at the Temple because they were suspicious of his anti-Torah teaching.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?
Matthew 8:3-4 Jesus stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I want to. Be made clean.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. (4) Jesus said to him, “See that you tell nobody, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”
Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?
Think because Yeshua had ties with the Essenes, who were against it. :innocent:
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Matthew 8:3-4 Jesus stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I want to. Be made clean.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. (4) Jesus said to him, “See that you tell nobody, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Think because Yeshua had ties with the Essenes, who were against it. :innocent:
That's what I thought at first too.

When I crossed checked, as to what exactly the "oblation as prescribed by Moses" was proved more difficult to ascertain.

Bible Hub,


Matthew 8:4 Commentaries: And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.".

And Jesus said to him, See you tell no man; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(4) See thou tell no man.—St. Mark adds, with his usual vividness, “straitly charged,” or vehemently urged him, and “forthwith sent him away.” The reasons of the command are not given, but are not far to seek. (1.) The offering of the gift was an act of obedience to the Law (Leviticus 14:10; Leviticus 14:21-22), and was therefore the right thing for the man to do. In this way also our Lord showed that He had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil. (2.) It was the appointed test of the reality and completeness of the cleansing work. (3.) It was better for the man’s own spiritual life to cherish his gratitude than to waste it in many words.
So much lies on the surface. But as the treatment of leprosy in the Mosaic code was clearly symbolical rather than sanitary, and dealt with the disease as the special type of sin in its most malignant form, so in the healing of the leper we may fairly see the symbol of our Lord’s power to purify and save from sin, and in His touching the leper, the close fellowship into which He entered with our unclean nature, that through His touch it might be made clean. The miracle, like most other miracles, was also a parable in act.



Benson Commentary
Matthew 8:4. Jesus saith, See thou tell no man — Although our Lord was now followed by a great multitude of people, yet it seems not many of them were witnesses of this miracle, Jesus, probably, taking the person aside from the people before he wrought it, otherwise, as Doddridge observes, it does not appear that there could have been room for this charge of secrecy; the meaning of which undoubtedly was, Tell no man that thou wast healed by me; that is, as some suppose, till thou hast offered thy gift to the priest; and he, by receiving it, hath owned thee to be clean from thy leprosy; lest they, hearing that thou wast cleansed by me, should, out of envy to me, refuse to acknowledge thy being cleansed. It must be observed, however, that he commanded many others absolutely to tell none of the miracles he had wrought upon them. And this he seems to have done, chiefly for one or more of these reasons: 1st, to prevent the multitudes from thronging him, in the manner related Mark 1:45; Mark 2 d, to fulfil the prophecy, (Isaiah 42:1, &c.,) that he would not be vain or ostentatious: this reason St. Matthew assigns, Matthew 12:17, &c.; 3d, to avoid being taken by force and made a king, John 6:15; John , , 4 th, that he might not enrage the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, who were the most bitter against him, any more than was unavoidable, Matthew 16:20-21.But show thyself to the priest — That is, to any one of the priests to whom the rest have committed the office of examining cases of leprosy. Here it is well observed by Dr. Lightfoot, that, though the priesthood was much degenerated from its primitive institution, and many human inventions were added to God’s law, touching the priest’s examination of the lepers who pretended to be cleansed; yet Christ sends this leper to submit to all these human inventions, as knowing that, though they indeed corrupted, yet they did not destroy the divine institution, and annihilate the office. For a testimony to them — That is, offer thy gift for a testimony that thou art cleansed from thy leprosy. Dr. Campbell, by the them here mentioned, understands, the people, and therefore translates the clause, Make the oblation prescribed by Moses for notifying [the cure] to the people.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
When I crossed checked, as to what exactly the "oblation as prescribed by Moses" was proved more difficult to ascertain.
There is a specific set of Laws for when someone has been cleansed of Leprosy (Leviticus 14:1-32). :innocent:
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
It struck me as strange that there are no accounts of Jesus or his disciples making animal offerings at the temple.

The old covenant was still in effect because Jesus hadn't ascended yet and from my understanding it is taken that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.

I found it strange that it's conspicuously missing. You would think that animal offerings would be accounted for in the New Testament narrative prior to the crucifixion by Jesus and the disciples.

What do you think the reason is that something as importiant as making offerings to God at the temple, mentioned many times in the Canon, is never mentioned or ommited throughout the entirety of the New Testament ?

They were still under the old law at the time. Wern't they?

Why dosent biblical narrative record shows it then?

The reason for Jesus not doing it is easy. The offerings were for sins committed, Jesus never sinned. The only sins recorded for the disciples are that of Judas, and he took care of that himself. The other is Peter's denial of Jesus and Jesus restored him and forgave him personally(Jn 21:15-17).
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jesus was of a different Priesthood not required to make offerings, the order of Melchizedek. Not a levitical Priesthood.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There is a specific set of Laws for when someone has been cleansed of Leprosy (Leviticus 14:1-32). :innocent:
Thank you for the information. :0)

It helps clarify a bit some of the OT references within the New Testament writings.

Also @omega2xx for his reply.

I was mystified as to why so little OT laws and practices were seemingly not applied to Jesus and the disciples among New Testament writings.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There's no such thing as an order of Melchizedek.

Yes there is. Melchizedek was the High Priest of Salem. The one who blessed Abraham. So then in a roundabout way Abraham was Father of the Levitical Priesthood of Moses. But Jesus was not of the Levitical order.

Hebrews 5:10 The Perfect High Priest
…and having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him and was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

And many other lines about it can be found in scripture. Genesis having the earliest mention of Melchizedek.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes there is. Melchizedek was the High Priest of Salem. The one who blessed Abraham. So then in a roundabout way Abraham was Father of the Levitical Priesthood of Moses. But Jesus was not of the Levitical order.

Hebrews 5:10 The Perfect High Priest
…and having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him and was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

And many other lines about it can be found in scripture. Genesis having the earliest mention of Melchizedek.

Psalms 110:4 Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” :innocent:

Both of you know quoting Christian Scripture to me is useless.

The Psalm has another translation according to the NRSV: "...forever, a rightful King by my edict."

(I took this directly from my printed Bible, but I'm sure it will be online somewhere)

The Chabad online Jewish translation says:

"The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek."


Tehillim - Psalms - Chapter 110

In other words, the word 'order' here has been misinterpreted and it means order as in to give a command, to order someone.

This Psalm is referring to David Melech. The name 'Melchizedek' means 'King of Righteousness' and as such, applies certainly to David as a title. That he should be a 'Priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek' also means that his descendants would rule forever.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Both of you know quoting Christian Scripture to me is useless.

The Psalm has another translation according to the NRSV: "...forever, a rightful King by my edict."

(I took this directly from my printed Bible, but I'm sure it will be online somewhere)

The Chabad online Jewish translation says:

"The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek."


Tehillim - Psalms - Chapter 110

In other words, the word 'order' here has been misinterpreted and it means order as in to give a command, to order someone.

This Psalm is referring to David Melech. The name 'Melchizedek' means 'King of Righteousness' and as such, applies certainly to David as a title. That he should be a 'Priest forever because of the speech of Melchizedek' also means that his descendants would rule forever.

Except Melchizedek never ordered anything. So I think I will stick with the Jewish Apostles interpretation.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Hebrew Concordance: diḇ·rā·ṯî -- 2 Occurrences

Psalm 110:4 Hebrew Text Analysis

If we look at all 5 references of the word H1700 within their contexts, seems the most appropriate English word that fits in all cases could be 'cause'... The Cause of Melchizedek.

Not sure how or why they put speech?

There is no 'speech of Melchizedek'; there is a cause, a Way, a ceremony, an order...

He showed a way of worship, and devotion; plus symbolically his name is a unison of a priest, and a king. :innocent:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Think because Yeshua had ties with the Essenes, who were against it.
There's not only no evidence for that, what evidence there is suggest he actually had no such ties, and historians in general are largely aware of that.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Except Melchizedek never ordered anything. So I think I will stick with the Jewish Apostles interpretation.
No-one said the speech was a good thing. it is generally taken that because Melchizedek blessed Abraham before he blessed G-d, the priesthood passed from him and to Abraham's seed instead.

This is what Mechizedek said, or 'ordered':

""Melchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. And [Melchizedek] blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God—Who possesses heaven and earth—and blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand." And [Abram] gave him a tithe from all."
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Hebrew Concordance: diḇ·rā·ṯî -- 2 Occurrences

Psalm 110:4 Hebrew Text Analysis

If we look at all 5 references of the word H1700 within their contexts, seems the most appropriate English word that fits in all cases could be 'cause'... The Cause of Melchizedek.

Not sure how or why they put speech?

There is no 'speech of Melchizedek'; there is a cause, a Way, a ceremony, an order...

He showed a way of worship, and devotion; plus symbolically his name is a unison of a priest, and a king. :innocent:
Gonna have to take this up with a Hebrew speaker, Wiz, I can't argue either way.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No-one said the speech was a good thing. it is generally taken that because Melchizedek blessed Abraham before he blessed G-d, the priesthood passed from him and to Abraham's seed instead.

This is what Mechizedek said, or 'ordered':

""Melchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God. And [Melchizedek] blessed him, and he said, "Blessed be Abram to the Most High God—Who possesses heaven and earth—and blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand." And [Abram] gave him a tithe from all."

Yeah, he blessed Abram. How does that fit with Jesus being ordered anything, or ordering a priesthood?
 
Top