But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again.
But Paul clearly spoke of this purpose of the law to bring his people to Christ in the *past tense* not in some *future restoration* of the Levitical priesthood with the slaughter of thousands of animals. You are quite mistaken. This notion was not even a thought in anyone's mind until the advent of Darbyism - the error being floated on this thread.But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again
Last edited by quiet dove; Sep 1st 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason: edited first Sentence
As a matter of fact, the Temple itself will not have to be in place, because whatever place Lord Jesus will have built for Him will become that very same HOLY place that His Father can call home. I know that if my father was ever a true dad to me, my house would be open to him. But Jesus doesn't have that problem, because His Father is the Greatest Father ever, and I am sure that if He, Lord Jesus, can lay His life down at the command of His Father, that sharing His house would not be a problem at all.
To which I said, "nope," but God might have let them keep the temple for a museum, or a hotel, or Jerusalem City Council offices - something like that.
God is a reasonable person. No need to destroy a nice building if the people had accepted his Son as the final atonement - the fulfillment of the temple.
If one is broken on this road of gravel,
That we travel:
He can fix him. Nothing licks Him.
It was never a mistake to trust the Lord.
Why all the preparations for it, right down to the utensils, the clothes the priests will wear, the furniture?............... Israel is buzzing with these preparations.
Let's not get all emotional about it but deal in reason and fact. Logically, if the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system served to evangelize the Jews in the past, it can serve the same function in the future. Paul argues that once a man has Christ he no longer needs the tutor of the Law to guide him, which of course, is predicated on the idea that he has Christ. But if the man is in transition from paganism to Christ, obedience to God's law can be a proper intermediate step.But Paul clearly spoke of this purpose of the law to bring his people to Christ in the *past tense* not in some *future restoration* of the Levitical priesthood with the slaughter of thousands of animals. You are quite mistaken. This notion was not even a thought in anyone's mind until the advent of Darbyism - the error being floated on this thread.
As we think this through to its logical end, we must bear in mind that our future Jewish brothers and sisters will not immediately jump from paganism and atheism to the affirmation of an fully formed systematic Christian theology. It has been my experience that people tend to take small steps of faith in progression as that which one is willing to believe slowly comes into alignment with what one ought to believe.
And just as Ezekiel saw flesh attach itself to the bones, it is conceivable to me that Israel will go through a time of flesh as she moves through the stages of belief, being retrained to think in terms of sin and death before coming to affirm the necessity of the cross.
As for your reference to Darby, I wish to publicly repudiate his view and distance myself from his original teaching. I don't think it is fair to suggest that I or anyone here believes the sacrificial system will negate or replace what Jesus did on the cross.
I think I fairly and logically dealt with the Amil argument against the Millennial sacrifices, namely that God thinks of them as an abomination. In a previous post I showed that had Israel repented, and no one has argued that God didn't want Israel to repent, had Israel repented the Temple would have been built and God would have instituted the sacrifices in it and he would have been pleased with it. Consequently we know that God did not object to them per se, but rather his true objection was the doubleminded, stubborn, disregard for the spiritual meaning behind them and the crass hard-heartedness of those who practiced them.
If Amil is going to argue that the sacrifices are an abomination to God, they must show what changed God's mind in the interim and that it is within God's character to change his mind, and that God lacks the foresight to pour out his spirit on all their hearts as he promised so that they might repent and bring forth the Temple and sacrifices as he wished. They must show how the very same God that induced Pharaoh to stubbornly restrict the children of Jacob from leaving Egypt, even to the point of losing Egyptian first born sons is the same God who couldn't pour out his spirit on his people -- as he said he could -- so that they might turn to him in repentance and build the temple.
Moreover Amil must answer the seeming contradiction between two logical implications of their theory. Either Amil is dispensational enough to think that the Cross was God's Plan B to remedy the willful disregard Israel had for his Plan A, which was to bring about a glorious reign of the Messiah on earth in a Temple built as his abode and a place where Levitical priests would continually sacrifice animals for the expiation of sin, or Amil must explain why Ezekiel's temple wasn't some kind of cosmic joke, as if God's offer only appeared to be genuine, knowing in advance that Israel was unable to comply.
The entire Jewish narrative teaches us a simple truth. The sole reason why the Jews were unable or unwilling to comply with the Covenant at Mt. Sinai is the lack of a spiritual birth. We learn from the testament of the New Covenant God's opinion as to the reason behind the failure of the first covenant, which was the law was not written on the hearts of the people. And we learn from his prophets God's promise to remedy this situation with a new spirit and a new heart for the people.
And so, while the Amil position seems to be that God's promise of a new Temple was contingent on repentance and reconciliation between Israel and God, they seem to forget that it was God himself who promised to give them the requisite new heart that would make repentance possible. And no doubt, had God done this for them after the return from Babylon as he seemed to promise, they would have repented at the sign of Ezekiel's divinely revealed designs for the new temple.
How could Amil dane to think that God promised to fix the pot if only the pot would fix itself first.
53 times thru my mentor's videos, cds, tapes, dvds, lectures, personal contact, interviews, review of the literature.
BroRog, you write well ~~~ great form, clarity. Thanks!
Therefore, whether Jewish believers, who keep the law and offer the sacrifices find themselves on one side of the cross or the other, the blood of Jesus is efficacious for those who offer the sacrifices before the cross and efficacious for those who offer sacrifices after the cross, as long as they have the same faith as their father Abraham. I don't think I am so dispensational as to suggest that God required believers to offer sacrifices prior to the cross as an additional prerequisite to salvation and so I am not so dispensational as to suggest that he will add a new prerequisite to the cross in the future.
Moreover, I am not one to contradict what the Apostle said regarding those who pleased God, having believed that he existed and rewarded those who sought him. For this reason, I can only conclude that the sacrifices were never intended as a means to God's favor in and of themselves but only as an act of obedience from one who already had faith and trust in God. The sacrifices taken alone had no effect on the heart of God as he himself declared them to be a bad smell in his nose (to put it politely.) These offerings served a purpose ancillary to the purposes of salvation, as God was willing to save even those who were born prior to the event at Mt. Sinai. And to what ultimate purpose these offerings will stand in a future temple we are only beginning to speculate, but I am not so willing to council God on his plans for the sons of Aaron. I can only trust that these offerings will serve some greater good to bring God glory.
I dare say, I hope I didn't lead you to believe that the priesthood or the law were a "dead" priesthood and law as I assure you that I have not found such an idea in the scriptures. I have read the Apostle say that he, himself was "dead" with respect to the law, or that in terms of using the law against its intended purpose, namely, to seek justification there, is as a dead husband to a widow who is free to seek another husband, that is Christ. I wouldn't think of bringing a charge against the Apostle to suggest that he preached against the law, when he said somewhere that the law was good, and that being a Pharisee of Pharisees he remained blameless before the law. And as he says in his epistle to the Romans, the law speaks to those who are under it to bring them all under sin. If the Apostle brings such high praise for the Law, it would be the ultimate in arrogance for me to speak against him.
If there are Millennial sacrifices, my impression is there would have to be a Third Testament of sorts. Which I wouldn't find out of the question--if Jesus comes back, He can do that. (I am amill, BTW, so it's a bit of a moot point to me)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)