Millennial Sacrifices???

[the rookie]

I believe what is taught in the book of Hebrews does shut the door on it. I don't see how one can read the book of Hebrews and still think that future animal sacrifices will be made.

It could be because the writer of Hebrews (Paul) himself participated in animal sacrifices, and at one time sought to do so at the urging of the apostle James to prove that he was not preaching against Moses, as some were charging.

The apostle James had a reputation before his death as the picture of a true Hebrew. One would assume that his reputation came, in part, with his participation in and observation of the daily temple rituals. Otherwise, he would have been quite despised and scorned by his brethren - not honored.

Why did the apostles originally meet daily in the temple if the sacrifices were the "abomination" we imagine the writer of Hebrews renders them? Why was there no mention of this point to their fellow Jews in their preaching in Acts? Why did Stephen fail to bring up this point, even as his statements against the temple itself cost him his life?

[John146]

It could be because the writer of Hebrews (Paul) himself participated in animal sacrifices, and at one time sought to do so at the urging of the apostle James to prove that he was not preaching against Moses, as some were charging.

The apostle James had a reputation before his death as the picture of a true Hebrew. One would assume that his reputation came, in part, with his participation in and observation of the daily temple rituals. Otherwise, he would have been quite despised and scorned by his brethren - not honored.

Why did the apostles originally meet daily in the temple if the sacrifices were the "abomination" we imagine the writer of Hebrews renders them? Why was there no mention of this point to their fellow Jews in their preaching in Acts? Why did Stephen fail to bring up this point, even as his statements against the temple itself cost him his life?

Do you think Paul participated in animal sacrifices at that time because he believed he had to? I don't. This is why I believe he did it:

1 Corinthians 9
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Do you see Ezekiel 40-48 as having a future fulfillment? If so, can you explain to me why sin offerings will be performed despite what it says in the following passage:

Hebrews 10
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

[the rookie]

Do you think Paul participated in animal sacrifices at that time because he believed he had to? I don't. This is why I believe he did it:

1 Corinthians 9
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

I agree with you.

But to make the sacrifices an "abomination" based on Hebrews is to then call Paul into question for participating in them to reach his fellow Jews. Or, to echo the rhetoric that is tossed around often in here related to the impossibility of future fulfillment - Paul was in sin to participate in the sacrifices.

Do you see Ezekiel 40-48 as having a future fulfillment?

Of course. Just because I don't grasp how it could be so doesn't mean I have the authority to shift the prophetic promise into a conditional one. I don't have that authority and neither do you.

If so, can you explain to me why sin offerings will be performed despite what it says in the following passage:

Nope.

I can say that, however, when I read that passage it seems to be speaking of the insufficiency of the sacrifices compared to the perfect sacrifice. They seemed to have some value to the writer of Hebrews, however, as a continual reminder of sins (Heb. 10:3).

[John146]

I agree with you.

But to make the sacrifices an "abomination" based on Hebrews is to then call Paul into question for participating in them to reach his fellow Jews. Or, to echo the rhetoric that is tossed around often in here related to the impossibility of future fulfillment - Paul was in sin to participate in the sacrifices.

Hmmm. Let me see here. When exactly did I say the sacrifices were an abomination? I didn't. It's not my point to say that the sacrifices would be an abomination. I am saying that God took no pleasure in them. So, why would He reinstitute something He took no pleasure in at some point in the future? Especially when you consider that Christ already made the once and for all sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

Of course. Just because I don't grasp how it could be so doesn't mean I have the authority to shift the prophetic promise into a conditional one. I don't have that authority and neither do you.

I never said I did. We both have the authority to have opinions, though. And it is my opinion that Ezekiel 43:10-11 does indicate that it was a conditional prophecy.

Ezekiel 43
10Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Nope.

I can say that, however, when I read that passage it seems to be speaking of the insufficiency of the sacrifices compared to the perfect sacrifice. They seemed to have some value to the writer of Hebrews, however, as a continual reminder of sins (Heb. 10:3).

No, that verse is saying that the animal sacrifices served no purpose but to remind people that they were sinners. The sacrifices didn't atone for their sins. The very next verse says " it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins". Christ's sacrifice, however, reminds us that we are sinners that have been forgiven and have had our sins atoned for by His sacrifice.

The sacrifices clearly have no value to God as He takes no pleasure in them so isn't that what really matters? Especially since Ezekiel 40-48 indicates that the sacrifices spoken about there are mandated by God?

[wpm]

Paul, what was the original purpose of the sacrifices?

The old covenant animal sacrifices were expiatiatory and propitiatiatory. The word expiation simply means to cover. The word propitiation means to appease. Propitiation is directed toward God and appeases His wrath on the merits of another, whereas, substitution is directed towards man and allows Him to approach a holy God on the merits of another. These two elements are found in the Old Testament atonements. However, when Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner.

Paul

[wpm]

It could be because the writer of Hebrews (Paul) himself participated in animal sacrifices, and at one time sought to do so at the urging of the apostle James to prove that he was not preaching against Moses, as some were charging.

The apostle James had a reputation before his death as the picture of a true Hebrew. One would assume that his reputation came, in part, with his participation in and observation of the daily temple rituals. Otherwise, he would have been quite despised and scorned by his brethren - not honored.

Why did the apostles originally meet daily in the temple if the sacrifices were the "abomination" we imagine the writer of Hebrews renders them? Why was there no mention of this point to their fellow Jews in their preaching in Acts? Why did Stephen fail to bring up this point, even as his statements against the temple itself cost him his life?

The Jewish infrastructure, government and tax system were all tied together with the temple religious practices. It would have been impossible to separate them at this time as a Jewish citizen. This is where AD70 drew the curtain on this unhealthy conglomeration. God closed this abolished system from a practical sense, despite it was rendered obsolete by the cross-work.

Paul

[the rookie]

The Jewish infrastructure, government and tax system were all tied together with the temple religious practices. It would have been impossible to separate them at this time as a Jewish citizen. This is where AD70 drew the curtain on this unhealthy conglomeration. God closed this abolished system from a practical sense, despite it was rendered obsolete by the cross-work.

Paul

You haven't really answered my questions - you've mostly restated and reframed what I had already said before inserting your own conclusion about the sacrifices in the last sentence.

[BroRog]

The old covenant animal sacrifices were expiatiatory and propitiatiatory. The word expiation simply means to cover. The word propitiation means to appease. Propitiation is directed toward God and appeases His wrath on the merits of another, whereas, substitution is directed towards man and allows Him to approach a holy God on the merits of another. These two elements are found in the Old Testament atonements. However, when Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner.

Paul

So then, if the sacrifices were both expiatory and propitiatory why did Jesus have to die?

[wpm]

So then, if the sacrifices were both expiatory and propitiatory why did Jesus have to die?

They covered sin but they never removed it. Christ alone could do that.

Paul

[Joyfulparousia]

Can someone give me the quick explanation of the Amil interpretation and application of Ezekiel's temple?

[the rookie]

Can someone give me the quick explanation of the Amil interpretation and application of Ezekiel's temple?

Sure, though I'm not Amil so someone else will probably jump on this as well - but the quick interpretation / application from that viewpoint is that the promise / vision given to Ezekiel was a conditional one meant to stir the people to righteousness in that generation; if they gave themselves to obedience and righteousness the Lord would build for them a glorious temple filled with His glory in that time in history.

[Cyberseeker]

It could be because the writer of Hebrews (Paul) himself participated in animal sacrifices,

No, he didnt actually. God intercepted his (mistaken) intention on one occasion and dragged him out before he could do such a thing. (Acts 21:30)

[BroRog]

They covered sin but they never removed it. Christ alone could do that.

Paul

Expiatory means atone. Does cover mean atone? Did God forgive the penitent?

[the rookie]

No, he didnt actually. God intercepted his (mistaken) intention on one occasion and dragged him out before he could do such a thing. (Acts 21:30)

I guess you could look at it that way. Paul himself took a Nazirite vow of purity while in Corinth and was on his way back to Jerusalem in part to complete that vow; he paid for four others to take the same vow; etc. What do you imagine the apostles / James the Just did all of those years in Jerusalem as Jews who believed that the Messiah had come after the ascension of Jesus?

The requirements set upon Gentile converts at the Jerusalem council was a historic distinction of what a Gentile did not have to participate in once converted into the faith; but it is notable that there is no mention of the "Judaizers" expressing zeal against the early apostolic leaders for forsaking their "Jewishness" - which would include the daily temple rituals and sacrifices since they were "daily in the temple".

wpm said it correctly - the sacrifices and offerings were an integral part of Jewish life and culture for 40 years after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus; this is why the Old Covenant was "fading away" at the writing of Hebrews. I absolutely agreed with his assessment but his conclusion was a bit strong, in my opinion.

I find that some of the rhetoric about the sacrifices is a bit overdone, and the Hebrew 10 passages a bit exaggerated to speak more passionately about the sacrificial system then I feel is warranted. It's reactionary theology in an attempt to overcorrect what many feel is the great error of premillennialism which uses the texts as a weapon in an argument rather than actually breaking down what King David meant when he sung about them (Ps. 40:6-8).

[BroRog]

Sure, though I'm not Amil so someone else will probably jump on this as well - but the quick interpretation / application from that viewpoint is that the promise / vision given to Ezekiel was a conditional one meant to stir the people to righteousness in that generation; if they gave themselves to obedience and righteousness the Lord would build for them a glorious temple filled with His glory in that time in history.

But we can immediately see the problem with this view, can't we? Was this an empty promise? What if Israel DID have a change of heart? This would have made God happy and today there would be a great and magnificent temple on that site with Aaron's sons acting as priests. Fresh water would be flowing, and the Lord would come from the east to live with the people.

The very thing the Amil people say is an abomination to God would have been the very thing God would have right now, today, had Israel repented. And who can say that God did NOT want Israel to repent? If God had his way, Israel would have repented and they would have built the temple and we would have animal sacrifices today.

End of story. Right?

When the Messiah would come, they would have welcomed him with open arms. He would have taken his rightful place as ruler and king. He wouldn't have died. No cross. No going to heaven to offer his blood, etc. And God would have been satisfied with that. God keeps his promises. The temple was his idea. Repentance of Israel was his idea. Temple sacrifices by Aaron's sons was his idea.

If Israel would have repented, she would be performing the very rituals that Amil folks say is an abomination to God, which were God's idea in the first place and had Israel repented, he would have accepted.

So, was Ezekiel 40-48 an empty promise, a sick game God was playing?