Millennial Sacrifices???

[John146]

I couldn't agree with you more. I think that Paul more than addressed this issue in his letter to the Galatians.

Gal 1:6-8
(6) I wonder that you are so quickly turning back from the One having called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel,
(7) which is not another; only there are some troubling you, even determined to pervert the gospel of Christ.
(8) But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Christ's work on the cross more than served to end the yoke of the Mosaic sacrificial system. What possible reason could there ever be to revive a religious system of slavery such as this in the presence of a glorified Christ, the same one that brought an end to such a system. See Hebrews chapter 8

Heb 8:12-13
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

It's vanished! The temple and the sacrificial system has been gone for almost 2,000 years. To reinstitute it for any reason can only be seen as an abomination in view of all that Jesus Christ has done for us.

And I couldn't agree with you any more. We are seeing a few here suggest that a different gospel will be in place during the supposed future millennium. People will no longer be saved by grace thorugh faith. They will also be required to bless Israel, whatever that means. I don't believe Galatians 1:8 is being taken seriously enough in those cases.

Regarding the old covenant sacrifices, if animal sacrifices were brought back, it would turn that passage from Hebrews into a lie because it would bring the old covenant back into effect. But to be made obsolete is to be done away with forever. Animal sacrifices will never be reinstituted because the once and for all sacrifice of Christ's shed blood on the cross is sufficient for all-time.

[John146]

There is nowhere in Ezekiel 40-47 that it suggests that these will be memorials to look back to the cross.

Exactly. So, why do people keep suggesting that is what the purpose of those supposed future sacrifices would be? That is nothing more than speculation with no scriptural support. If they would just look at the text itself, they will find no mention of them being performed as a memorial. Instead, we find this:

Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 46:20 Then said he unto me, This is the place where the priests shall boil the trespass offering and the sin offering, where they shall bake the meat offering; that they bear them not out into the utter court, to sanctify the people.

These offerings were to be performed in order to "make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and to "sanctify the people". There is no mention or even any hint at all of them being done as a memorial.

Eric

[ScottJohnson]

And I couldn't agree with you any more. We are seeing a few here suggest that a different gospel will be in place during the supposed future millennium. People will no longer be saved by grace thorugh faith. They will also be required to bless Israel, whatever that means. I don't believe Galatians 1:8 is being taken seriously enough in those cases.

Regarding the old covenant sacrifices, if animal sacrifices were brought back, it would turn that passage from Hebrews into a lie because it would bring the old covenant back into effect. But to be made obsolete is to be done away with forever. Animal sacrifices will never be reinstituted because the once and for all sacrifice of Christ's shed blood on the cross is sufficient for all-time.

There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

[markdrums]

There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

I have to agree as well!
And if you DO get a viable explanation, Please DO SHARE!

[ScottJohnson]

I have to agree as well!
And if you DO get a viable explanation, Please DO SHARE!

You got it......

[wpm]

There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

[Joyfulparousia]

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

Excellent summation of questions.

[Joyfulparousia]

This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

The Amil view, in my opinion, doesn't offer much more of a clear explanation either, except to say that these verses don't have any significant meaning. And, I do appreciate and value the views and interpretations given previously on this post (Paul, Eric, Scott etc thanks). While we may not yet know the full significance of Ez. 40-44, the Lord emphasized its importance to Ezekial in 40:4

Eze 40:4 And the man said to me, Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.

I believe the significance of this passage was emphasized to anyone who would read it. IMO, the Lord wouldn't give explicit detail if this passage was simply a conditional promise that was missed by Israel.

[markdrums]

The Amil view, in my opinion, doesn't offer much more of a clear explanation either, except to say that these verses don't have any significant meaning. And, I do appreciate and value the views and interpretations given previously on this post (Paul, Eric, Scott etc thanks). While we may not yet know the full significance of Ez. 40-44, the Lord emphasized its importance to Ezekial in 40:4

Eze 40:4 And the man said to me, Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.

I believe the significance of this passage was emphasized to anyone who would read it. IMO, the Lord wouldn't give explicit detail if this passage was simply a conditional promise that was missed by Israel.

I can see what you're saying here, and I DO believe that the passage WAS significant.... but significant TO the people at the time it was written. (I'm not implying it's of no "importance" to us nowadays, but I don't think it directly pertains to us in the context it was written.)

[Joyfulparousia]

I can see what you're saying here, and I DO believe that the passage WAS significant.... but significant TO the people at the time it was written. (I'm not implying it's of no "importance" to us nowadays, but I don't think it directly pertains to us in the context it was written.)

Point understood.

Was Zechariah 12:10 written to the House of David or to Gentiles?

[Joyfulparousia]

This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river?

[valleybldr]

Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river?

I'm still waiting but one can appreciate how strained these various efforts are to reconcile futuristic passages in the Prophets with the writer of Hebrews. IMO, our assumptions are faulty. todd

[wpm]

Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river?

Three different eras. (1) OT conditional promise. (2) NT reality. (3) Future eternal hope.

Paul

[valleybldr]

Three different eras. (1) OT conditional promise. (2) NT reality. (3) Future eternal hope.

Paul

It would be nice if you'd correlate the three scriptures to your three interpretations. todd

[Marc B]

Yes the commandments contained in the blood ordinances were indeed nailed to the cross. Nowhere does it say the 10 commandments were abolished.
If they were then adultery, murder, covetousness, idolatry, bearing false witness, and dishonoring your parents would be OK since the Bible does state that where there is no law there is no sin. So it begs the question. If the 10 commandments have been abolished does that mean we're off the hook if we do any of the above mentioned?