Resurrection Priest

Don't know that we agreed. Doubt it. I believe this present "heaven and earth", "will pass away" at the Glorious Appearing of Yeshua Messiah. That is when Messiah will resurrect those who belong to Him. Job 14:12 "So man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens be no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep." (Job 14:12 NKJ) 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 “For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” This is one event! (Which means that jots and tittles can pass from "the Law" at that point.) That means Yeshua will need to create "new heavens and new earth" for any inhabited millennium following. We know that Satan is cast into the abyss for 1000 years, and is then released for some short period of time, to deceive "the nations" which are in the four corners of the earth. Which would put that "release" at the 8th millennium, along with the final battle of Gog/Magog. Following that cleansing of the final rebels - by fire, the New Jerusalem can descend to earth. I believe the New Jerusalem cannot descend to earth until it is cleansed of all sin/sinners/death. I don't believe that will happen until some point in the 8th millennium.

Jesus gave the prophecies in symbolism, not literal description. Beasts with many heads, a harlot riding a beast, a lamb to represent Himself. Of course He used symbolism.

Folks who site that passage always seem not to notice that Paul uses metaphor for THREE states of being. 1. This present physical body: “earthy house”, “this tent”, “in this we groan”, “at home in the body”, “absent from the Lord” 2. Our new spiritual body: “a building from God”, “a house eternal in the heavens”, “further clothed” "clothed with our habitation from heaven”, “mortality swallowed up of life”, “absent from the [physical] body”, “present with the Lord” 3. Without a body : “unclothed”, “found naked” Without a body, one is DEAD.

I thought that was PARABLE - about the arrogant Jews ("rich in their own eyes, and thought they would go to Abraham's bosom at death). They viewed the beggar, covered with sores and sitting outside the gate, as "unclean" and "outside" the kingdom. Jews thought they would go to Heaven just because they were Jews, and circumcised (therefore in Covenant). Jesus was saying - "I got news for you." The rich man begs that Lazarus be sent to warn his 5 brothers. Abraham says they will not listen, even if someone were to rise from the dead. HMMMM Caiaphas had 5 brothers, who indeed would not listen when the real Lazarus was raised from death, and then Christ Himself was raised from death. Ya think that might be a parable? Yup.

Ahhh. But if we are standing in the New Jerusalem, there will BE NO SHADOWS. And I'm wondering how one would visit Jerusalem, and come before the LORD, without visiting the Ark. It was inside the Temple. Only way one could come before the LORD, and NOT visit the Ark, is if there are no longer any "stones" kept in a golden box. Same principle: We cannot fail to worship Yeshua when we bow before the throne of God and the Lamb. They sit together on the same throne.

I agree. The LORD will "save" only "Israel". One is either "grafted in" to that body, or not. There are not two bodies, or two brides. Only one. There was no gate with a sign "Gentiles Enter Here", and no 13th loaf of shewbread for Gentile believers. One must be attached to the Olive Tree, or one cannot draw life from the holy "root". Yeshua Messiah is that root. He is/was/and always will be. It is about faith. It's not about DNA. The LORD may have started with DNA descendants of Jacob (and a large mixed multitude) but over the many years, through the process of repeated breaking and grafting, He will end up with "a people" who have a heart to know Him. How many of them will be DNA descendants, we just don't know.

No. My thinking is that Israel (which included the "mixed multitude" - of Gentile "converts"), were under the LORD's testing during those 40 years. There were not "in Covenant" because they had rebelled against the LORD and His appointed prophet/leader/shepherd - a TYPE of our rebellion against God the Father and His Son (the prophet like Moses/the shepherd). The LORD was "testing" them "the know their hearts" toward Him. If the males of the "mixed multitude" were not circumcised, what happened to "There shall be one law, for the stranger as well as for the native" ? It is my understanding that Caleb was a Kenizzite - a great grandson of Esau. He was would have been one of the mixed multitude, assimilated into the tribe of Judah. Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim. There were three men of faith, who came out of Egypt (who were were over 20 at the first approach to the border) who and finally crossed over Jordan into the promised land (because of their great faith). The three together represent the kingdom of Yeshua. Aaron's son Eleazar (Jesus our High Priest - who replaced the original priest Aaron), Joshua (DNA Hebrews) and Caleb (grafted in "aliens").

I believe the LITERAL of the First Covenant, SYMBOLIZED the REALITY of New Covenant. That is how I read those prophecies. I read the real one, and see the one to come. I do NOT believe that one is ADDED on top of the other. I believe that the NEW replaces the FIRST. If you want to call that "replacement theology" - so be it. But it's not "replacement". A butterfly does not "replace" the caterpillar. Rather one grows into the other, by a miracle of God. The empty shell is just left - empty. It has no function once the butterfly has emerged. I see the prophetic animal blood sacrifices much like that butterfly cocoon. Something necessary for the process. The LITERAL stones symbolized the "hard" hearts of stone - of His "first wife" (Hagar the slave). When the LORD has given Israel (Sarah - his new wife) "hearts of flesh" then His Law can be "written" on those hearts of flesh. Then there will be no further need for the literal stones with commandments written on them. That is why no one will visit the Ark of the Covenant any longer (Jer. 3:16). In the future kingdom, they will come before Yeshua and His Father [the REAL "Ark" and "Temple"] at the New Jerusalem (which was SYMBOLIZED by the LITERAL Jerusalem of the First Covenant). One was A PROPHECY of the other. You keep saying - the "whole TORAH" will be kept. Yes - but NOT the LITERAL TORAH of the First Covenant. The whole TORAH - that "First Covenant" - symbolized something - something future. I believe that the whole FUTURE TORAH - will be our reality (not the symbolic one). The "first" will bear about as much resemblance to the "new" as a caterpillar bears to the butterfly. You keep saying we will keep the caterpillar. Yes. We will. But it will look like a butterfly. You quote the prophecies and see the caterpillar. I read the prophecies and see the butterfly.

My argument has been against the animal sacrifices of the "First Covenant", that were offered by Levite/Aaronic priests. I believe that priesthood has been "changed" - BACK TO the priesthood of "the firstborn". Christ IS "the firstborn" of God. When we are "in Him" we become priests of that order. I do believe "the Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ" - both the prophetic TYPES and the unchanging moral laws. I just believe the prophetic animal sacrifices are done, now that Christ has become the "one true sacrifice" for all time. I am not against the Ten Commandments. I just believe they are useless without the Spirit of Christ within. They ARE like a "millstone" around the neck. They are like an instruction manual for a car - without any gas. The teachings of Jesus went beyond the simple 10 Commandments of the Sinai Covenant - given for a people newly released from slavery. Under the New Covenant we are to pray for our enemies - for those who use us or persecute us. We are to love one another as He loved us. These are higher standards. These higher standards do NOT void the standards enjoined by the Sinai Covenant. Rather they ADD TO them. The Sinai Covenant said, "You are not to commit adultery." Jesus said that looking upon a woman as just a sex object, IS adultery. A higher standard. One involved only the outward action. The other involved motive and "the heart".

To "repent" means "to turn" - as in a different direction. One must "turn" towards Christ, to be saved. One does not have to reach perfection. He just has to be facing in the right direction - towards Christ.

AMEN! We do have a part - a choice. We must choose not to resist. Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless my Father draws them" (John 6:44). If we do not resist the Father, we will be drawn to the feet of Jesus. If we do not resist, He will then write His Law on our hearts. It is the Law of unselfish love for God and for our fellow man. The dynamic between grace, and resulting "good works" is sometimes difficult to understand, especially for the new believer. It's NOT that anyone can earn salvation by doing good things. No way! Salvation is never earned. It the gift of God. But the Spirit of God pouring into our hearts, fills us with good will toward others. The resulting "good works" are the result of that Spirit within. Those works are a witness to others of Jesus' love - and that He is risen, and lives today - within us. Looking at someone from the outside, it can be difficult to tell whether a person is doing the good things to "make points with God" OR is doing them because he is so full of God's love that he cannot help loving others. (He has become an extension of God's love in this world.) But God knows. Many people are saying repetitious prayers over and over and over, because they live in fear. They are "buying fire insurance" - or think they are. Such people do not know the love God has for them. If they only knew His love, they would run to His open arms crying with joy.

What about the circumcision of Joshua? I thought Joshua "circumcised" all the men after crossing the Jordan into the land, because no circumcision was performed during the 40 years wandering. Weren't those men of all ages? Only those over 60 at the time of the Jordan crossing would have been circumcised - as infants. Joshua 5:3 "So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites on the Hill of the Foreskins." Joshua 5:5 "For all the people who came out [of Egypt] were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised." Joshua 5:7 "And their children [the children of all those over 20 who died in the wilderness] whom He [the LORD] raised up in their place, Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them along the way." QUESTION: What is your understanding of WHY circumcision had not been performed (even on infants) during the 40 years of wandering? Did the LORD regard them as not in covenant with Him?

The "wise men" brought their gifts to a "house" when Jesus was about 2 years old (not to the manger). They told King Herod approximately when "the star" had appeared in their country - the one that they had followed. That is why King Herod sent his soldiers to kill every infant male 2 years and younger. There's a great DVD "The Star of Bethlehem". Lots of NASA star charts and data.

If I can recommend free videos on YouTube by Neil T. Anderson. He explains step by step, about our position in Christ Jesus (this is where we get our authority), about how Satan works, about how each part of the "armor of God" works. The battle is for the mind. Demons can put thoughts into our minds. We are not strong enough to fight them, but God's angels are. Anderson is a very humble man, who teaches very matter-of-fact-ly about demonic harrassment, demonic attacks, and demon possession. They're not the same. When we command demons to leave - in the name of Jesus, we must do so outloud. Demons cannot read minds. Last few days, I kept thinking "I'm so bored" - over and over. Now - I've really been studying Scripture (which is not boring). I finally recognized the attempt to distract me, and told it to "Get lost" "in the name of Jesus whose blood covers me". Then I had to laugh. Oh - I said outloud, "you're already lost". You lost - to Jesus! Haven't "heard" that thought again. Blessings

Personally, I think it very possible that Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary at the winter solstice, but I don't believe Christ was born on Christmas. The back-story is interesting. John the Baptist's father Zachariah was serving as a priest in the Temple. He belong to the clan of Abijah (Luke 1:5). King David had divided the priesthood into 24 courses of priests, to take turns serving at the Temple. The clan of Abijah came up the 2nd and 3rd week of June (by our calendar). After the angel appeared to Zachariah, and he was dumb, he then went home of "knew his wife" and Elizabeth became pregnant. When the angel came to Mary with "the announcement", he told Mary that her cousin Elizabeth was six months with child. Third week of June + six months = 3rd week of December. There ya go. The birth of Jesus would have come around the 3rd week of September - just in time for the Feast of Tabernacles. The prophecy did say that He would come to tabernacle with us. The "no room at the inn" is also interesting. Joseph was traveling back to "the city of his birth". He had oodles of relatives there - at Bethlehem. Why would he and Mary have to stay at an "inn" ?? What the story doesn't reflect is the Law concerning the birth of a child. The new mother had to be separated completely for a number of days (which differed depending on the sex of the newborn). The relatives of Joseph would have expected him. It was the Feast, and Israelite males were required to appear in Jerusalem for those Feasts. What they didn't expect was a very gravid wife, ready to give birth. There was no special separate "room" prepared for a birth. It was actually common for the poor to separate new mothers in a corner of the stable, with lots of clean straw. Christmas Blessings

The priesthood, sacrifices, and circumcision of the "First" Covenant WERE SYMBOLIC. They pointed forward to Christ and Him crucified. There IS a "sacrifice" in Heaven - The "Lamb of God". I do not believe that God wants the system of animal blood and carcasses to be continued - literally - in His forever kingdom. I just don't. The first strong hint of the "change" - I believe - was Christ's own command that His followers "eat this bread" and "drink this cup" to "show the LORD's death til He come" (not - til another Temple is erected). Christ could have commanded that his followers "eat this lamb". But He didn't. If the "bread" and the "cup" of Passover are all we need to commemorate our LORD's death, how could I believe a movement that tells me, "No. You need to kill and roast a lamb and be careful not to break a bone." It just doesn't ring true in my mind or spirit. (Yes. I know. Only after the Temple is restored on the Mount at Jerusalem. Assuming they would even let "Christians" in there.) At my home, we eat the "bread" and drink "the cup" at a Passover meal, once each year. We understand it to be a renewal of covenant. I personally don't understand the reasoning behind communion once a quarter, or once a week, or Mass daily. I don't personally get that. I believe the Ten Commandments are for all human beings - including the Sabbath of the 7th Day. Those commandments constitute a promise of what Christ will do - in us. I find it puzzling that most Christian churches today readily teach 8 of those commandments. The Catholics took out the one against images, and made the last one into 2. Very few teach the Rest of the 7th Day, even though the LORD declared that day holy at the end of creation week (a looooong time before Mt Sinai).

BibleGuy, Is it fair of me to say that you are more focused on the DO IT side of the coin, as opposed to the RECEIVE IT side?

Sorry BloodBought 1953. I didn't feel that good reading your reply. You did seem to be "attacking" BibleGuy for his beliefs, rather than reasoning from Scripture. I don't think we should publicly call the "other" guy "blind", even if you vigorously disagree with his interpretations of Scripture. I don't agree with a lot of what BibleGuy posts either. But I haven't called him blind, or stubborn, or "legalist", or supporting Antichrist, or "against Christ", etc. etc. etc. etc. Our feet must be shod with the Gospel of Peace, which means we must try to treat each other with respect, even when we hold opposite views.

BOTH heart circumcision AND flesh circumcision [This is the LORD speaking] "For all the nations are uncircumcised (of flesh), and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart." (Jer 9:26 NAS) The LORD says He will destroy all of them. Ezekiel 44:9 "This is what the sovereign LORD says: No foreigner, who is and uncircumcised in heart and flesh among all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, will enter into my sanctuary." (NET) Question: How would the LORD prevent someone "uncircumcised in heart" from entering His sanctuary? Is He going to strike them dead just as they try to enter, much like the Jews would strike dead any physically uncircumcised man who attempted to enter the Temple court at Jerusalem? Did anyone report seeing such happen at Jerusalem? Answer: No. (Except maybe for King Uzziah, but he was inside the Temple trying to burn incense.) This tells us that the Temple described in Ezekiel 44 may not be a literal Temple. The Temple that Ezekiel was shown may be symbolic. Or it may represent an interface between earth and the "true Tabernacle" which is "Heaven itself". It is easy to quote just isolated verses from Ezekiel to say that this Temple is literal. For instance Ezekiel 37:27-28. "And my tabernacle shall be among them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the nations shall know that I am the Lord that sanctifies them, when my sanctuary is in the midst of them for ever." (Eze 37:27 LXA) OK. But we know from Revelation that God and the Lamb ARE the forever Temple of the New Jerusalem. "I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Revelation 21:22 The "circumcision of the heart" is only performed by Christ our High Priest. It is only performed with our consent. And it is not limited to males. I believe the "circumcision" of Abraham and Israelite males was also SYMBOLIC - of the future "circumcision". It symbolized the LORD's promise to loose us from this "flesh" we live inside of. When we receive our new "spiritual body" - the old "flesh" will be gone. Only those with this circumcision will be able to enter heaven itself. THAT is HOW He can keep out people who are "uncircumcised in flesh". He doesn't make them immortal. Joshua (a TYPE of Jesus) lead Israel across the Jordan - that rolled back as a scroll. Jesus will lead us through the sky - that rolls back as a scroll. Then Joshua "circumcised the people." Jesus will circumcise His redeemed Israel. The old "flesh" will be gone. Then Israel ate the Passover, in the land. And Jesus will eat the Passover "new" with us - in the Kingdom.

I thought Abraham had the rite performed on himself, and every male of his household, regardless of age, including all his servants. Isn't the story of Abraham in Torah (the 5 Book of Moses)? If you're saying that TORAH is only those commands given by the LORD through Moses, then that leaves out Genesis and several chapters of Exodus. Genesis 17:10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." (NAS) Genesis 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son (age 14), and all the servants who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him. (NAS)

BibleGuy, I find it difficult to read through you respond posts. You repeat things I have posted, without putting those things in the quote box. It's hard to distinguish quickly between what I said, and what you are saying in reply. Anyway. I totally disagree with your statement in the box above. And STOP saying that I'm on the side of the Antichrist! That's just mean! It's not a good way to win an argument, much less to continue polite discussion. Isaiah 66:20 "Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 21 "And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites," says the LORD. 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. (NKJ) This text says that people - "your brethren" - will be brought like an offering. Some of them - the LORD will take for priests and for Levites. Your understanding of this depends on your viewpoint. I understand Isaiah to say the LORD will take some of these "brothers" (fellow believers in Yeshua) for priests (not necessarily Aaronic priests), and "for Levites" (meaning they will serve like the Levites once served, as persons to serve the LORD at His Temple). In Isaiah's day the Levites were non-priests who served at the Temple. Aaron had 2 brothers who were also sons of Levi. But only Aaron and his descendants were chosen as priests. WHEN the earth (and the Jerusalem Temple) is completely "burned up". WHEN Jesus stands on this earth, if HE then instructs all men to bring animals, to kill them, and to present their blood to HIS Father GOD, THEN I will do so. But I do not believe such will ever happen. Just because they die at the Return, doesn't mean they cannot be resurrected, and constitute "nations in the four corners of the earth" who will live under the ruler-ship of Christ and His "kings and priests". At the Glorious Return: (1) the redeemed will be made immortal, (2) the rebellious wicked will be judged and annihilated (3) "the rest" will remain asleep in death for another 1000 years, to be resurrected at the 8th millennium. Then all your verses describing "nations" who serve Israel, will come to pass. "The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5).

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Did Christ fulfill TORAH? Answer: Yes! He was obedient unto death. He perfectly fulfilled the terms of the covenant and will therefore legally receive the reward of the covenant - the land. "Fulfill" Strong's #4137, meaning to accomplish or to complete. Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." "Accomplished" - Strong's #1096, meaning: to come into being, to happen, to become. Two different words are used. One tells us that Christ would accomplish something, or complete something. (Jesus cried out "it is finished".) The other word tells us that something will happen. Something will come into being. And the NEW thing will not come into being UNTIL this present "heaven and earth" "pass away". What will be "new" once this present "heaven and earth" have passed away? Is it not the "new heavens and a new earth" (Isa 65:17, Isa 66:22, 2Peter 3:13)? It seems obvious that some things will "pass away from the Law" WHEN "heaven and earth pass away". You seem to be preaching that nothing WILL EVER pass away from TORAH - that it will go on unchanged forever - even when Christ creates new heavens and the New Earth. UNTIL this world is passed away Matthew 5:19 "Whoever then annuls (removes) one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." I did NOT removed any commandment. I have not taught others that any one of GOD's commands are removed. GOD has instituted the Melchizedek priesthood as present reality. That priesthood exists now, as the only means of reconciliation (atonement) with GOD. Access to a Levite priesthood has been impossible for almost 2000 years. The LORD has allowed that. When/if the LORD allows the building of a new Temple on the Mount, and when/if Levite priests are consecrated for that Temple - it will not be a "sin" to go there and offer sacrifices. Those believers in Yeshua who are allowed to do so, will do so as a memorial to Him. They will do so because they are seeking to fulfill TORAH. I don't believe the LORD would punish them for such. (I also very much doubt that believers in Yeshua will be allowed at that Temple.) I also do not believe the LORD will punish those genuine believers who choose NOT to offer animal sacrifices, because of their beliefs - especially those who live far from the territory of Israel. When/if another Temple is restored on the Mount, it will only last for a short time. We don't know how long between the inauguration of that Temple and the appearance of the Antichrist in that Temple. He will sit in that Temple, "showing himself that he is God". His army "will take away the daily sacrifices and place there the abomination that makes desolate" . After that, it may only be months (perhaps 42) before Christ returns. The earth will pass away 2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." NO ONE will "survive" that day, unless removed from this planet!

Christ will energize us to keep HIS "changed" TORAH. I did not "change" TORAH. GOD the Father did. You deny that the LORD has changed TORAH. The TORAH is NOT "abolished". I has been "changed" - specifically "the priesthood" - BY GOD HIMSELF. There is STILL a priesthood - the Melchizedek priesthood of "the firstborn" - which was the original priesthood. The Levite priesthood is NOT THE ORIGINAL PRIESTHOOD. The Levite priesthood WAS a change. The words "the Levites instead of the firstborn" are repeated several times (Numbers 3:12, 41, 45; Num 8:16, 18). The LORD Himself commanded that "change" after the Golden Calf rebellion. So don't tell me that God never changes anything. The "change" (back to the firstborn) after Christ's death and ascension, was to bring things BACK to His original order. The Levite priesthood was a detour from that plan. When I recognize and honor the priesthood of the Firstborn, "instead of" the Levite priesthood, I am keeping TORAH.

I rest on the 7th Day each week. In my Bible, the LORD called that day "holy" at the end of creation week. (That was a whopping long way before Mount Sinai. That was before sin.) The word translated as "holy" means "belonging to the LORD". He declared that day - HIS day. I can't find any place where HE removed the "holy" status of that day, or declared any other day "holy". When Yeshua said "the Son of Man is LORD even of the Sabbath Day", He was claiming to be the LORD who created everything, the One who that day "holy". The Sabbath is HIS HOLY DAY. At Sinai the LORD just told Israel to "remember". In Romans 14:1-6 Paul starts out talking about eating meat vs only vegetables. That was because all the "meat" in the markets had first been presented to pagan idols, before being offered for sale. The Jerusalem council had warned against eating "things offered to idols". Paul thought the more mature would realize that idols of stone could not change the food. As for special days, Paul may be talking about fasting days. "The Pharisees fast often" (Matt 9:14, Mk 2:18). "Let no one judge you in food [meat offerings] or in drink [drink offerings], or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." Col 2:16,17 Meat offerings and drink offerings were part of each sacrifice at the Temple. Paul may be telling believers not to allow the Pharisees to "judge them" regarding how they commemorated the Feasts. Paul calls those Feasts "shadows" pointing to Christ and what He would do. There was no need for believers of Paul's day to travel to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. I personally believe the sacrifice of animals was rendered "obsolete" with the death of Messiah. I do personally commemorate the Feast days. I eat unleavened bread during Passover week. I refrain from work on those days. Even Paul said, "Christ our Passover was slain for us." "Therefore let us keep the Feast." (ICor 5:7-8). What "Feast" would Paul have been talking about - in context? Obviously the Passover. Isaiah puts the Sabbath in the New Earth. That's future. Isaiah 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth I am about to make will remain standing before me," says the LORD, "so your descendants and your name will remain. 23 From one month to the next and from one Sabbath to the next, all people will come to worship me," says the LORD. (NET)

Thanks. The state of Israel may re-institute sacrifices at a rebuilt Temple, but how can the LORD accept the sacrifices of a people who have rejected His own Son. Even today, before one can become "Jewish" or a citizen of that state, one must renounce Jesus specifically and by name as Messiah, and/or God's "only begotten son". Isaiah 29:13 Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, (NAS)