Jesus, end of blood sacrifice?

[california_ave]

Alma 34:13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the claw of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

D&C 13.1: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Was Christ's sacrifice the end and put an end to blood sacrifice? Does the "offering" of the Son of Levi referred to in Malachi and repeated by John the Baptist necessarily mean the same kind of OT "offerings", that is a blood sacrifice. How do we reconcile these? Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie believed that this Levitical offering would be a one-time sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things". John Widsoe believed that the prophecy referred to a restoration of modern temple work, that is ordinances for the dead.

What say ye?

[brother01]

I've always counted on the book of Hebrews regarding this matter. The commandments of God about sacrifice for sin is best given in the OT law and the book of Hebrews explained the gospel to the Hebrews, who needed to understand how the law foreshadowed the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The book covers the matter quite well. Have you studied it yet?

[Maureen]

D&C 13.1: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Maybe it's just a different way of saying that the sons of Levi will never have to make an offering ever again, therefore the Aaronic Priesthood will never been taken from the earth.

[Vort]

D&C 13.1: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Was Christ's sacrifice the end and put an end to blood sacrifice? Does the "offering" of the Son of Levi referred to in Malachi and repeated by John the Baptist necessarily mean the same kind of OT "offerings", that is a blood sacrifice. How do we reconcile these?

Many in the Church, including leaders, have opined that this means there will again be blood sacrifice, at least one time. I don't see this at all. D&C 13 specifically states that the Priesthood is restored "until" the sons of Levi offer up a righteous offering. That harkens back to the ancient blood sacrifices, but it doesn't say that.

Note Oliver Cowdery's recounting of this same prayer. He says that John (the Baptist) said something like "THAT the sons of Levi may offer up etc." One meaning of the word "until" is "to the end that" or "for the purpose that". This usage was much more common in the early 19th century, and agrees perfectly with Cowdery's recounting. If we accept this idea, then what John the Baptist said is that the Aaronic Priesthood is being restored TO THE END THAT the sons of Levi offer up a righteous offering.

And what is the righteous offering that has been required of us for all time, and more specifically since Christ's mortal ministry? A broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Behold the reason for the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood!

IMO. YMMV. LDS RM NFL QB.

[InTheDoghouse]

The answer lies in the Book of Numbers in the Old Testament. The Sons of Levi were being set apart as the "representatives" of the congregation to fulfill the requirement of the law of the first born. It is here that they are washed anointed and the congregation "lays their hands upon them" in a transference of authority as they move inside the tabernacle. They are now acting as proxy for the rest of the congregation. They are literally doing vicarious work for those who were unable to do it for themselves. Today we become the "Sons of Moses and of Aaron" by accepting these two priesthoods... the Aaronic to the end of the Melchizedek (Sec 84: 33-39) and move inside the temple to do vicarious work as well... the Sons of Levi are again indeed making an offering in righteousness!

[Yekcidmij]

Does the "offering" of the Son of Levi referred to in Malachi and repeated by John the Baptist necessarily mean the same kind of OT "offerings", that is a blood sacrifice. How do we reconcile these?

The offering in Malachi 3 is definitely refering to Levitical offerings. The language tips us off:

Mal 3:3 He will act like a refiner and purifier of silver and will cleanse the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then they will offer the Lord a proper offering. 3:4 The offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in former times and years past.

The phrase "pleasing to the Lord" is a typical phrase regarding Levitical offerings. I think it usually refers to the burnt offering (Num 28) and occasionally the sin offering (Lev 10:19).

Malachi is addressing corruption in the Temple (Mal 2). YHWH made it clear it the Old Testament that He is not after mindless ritual. He doesn't want sacrifices to be some form of routine and ritual that is done because it just has to be done:

Psalm 50:8 I am not condemning you because of your sacrifices,

or because of your burnt sacrifices that you continually offer me.

50:9 I do not need to take a bull from your household

or goats from your sheepfolds.

50:10 For every wild animal in the forest belongs to me,

as well as the cattle that graze on a thousand hills.

50:11 I keep track of every bird in the hills,

and the insects of the field are mine.

50:12 Even if I were hungry, I would not tell you,

for the world and all it contains belong to me.

50:13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls?

Do I drink the blood of goats?

50:14 Present to God a thank-offering!

Repay your vows to the sovereign One!

50:15 Pray to me when you are in trouble!

I will deliver you, and you will honor me!”

.....

50:23 Whoever presents a thank-offering honors me.

To whoever obeys my commands, I will reveal my power to deliver.”

Prov 15:8 The Lord abhors the sacrifices of the wicked,

but the prayer of the upright pleases him.

What He is after is a repentant heart (and that doesn't simply mean being sorry all the time). This was the exact problem in the Temple that Malachi was dealing with. The system was corrupt and the people were wondering when God would return to His temple. Things weren't quite as they should be. Malachi, addressing this serious problem, says the messenger of the covenant will come and purify the Levites (the priests) and they will offer a proper offering as they use to (probably pre-exile). Of course, I think that offering was acheived, though it wasn't quite like people were expecting. The purposes of the sin and burnt offerings were satisify God's wrath and remove sin by offering a sacrifice that would be a "pleasing" and "soothing" aroma to God (see Leviticus 1 for exampe). Indeed Malachi 3 did happen as Jesus offered up Himself as the perfect and pleasing atoning sacrifice.

Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie believed that this Levitical offering would be a one-time sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things".

If Smith and McConkie consider Jesus as the restoration of all things, then I agree mostly, though I would have phrased it using Jesus' own words:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, not the restoration of it. Torah never went away anywhere.

John Widsoe believed that the prophecy referred to a restoration of modern temple work, that is ordinances for the dead.

I don't know how he makes that connection.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Yekcidmij