Millennial Sacrifices???

[wpm]

Premils believe animal sacrifices will be reintroduced after the Coming of Christ in a supposed future millennium. They believe they will be memorial - reminding people of Calvary. However, a memorial by definition must look back. Animal sacrifices are never depicted as such in the Old or the New Testament, rather the opposite – they look forward. Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of “good things to come” not a ‘memorial of things that have already been'. They simply pointed forward to the Cross. Interestingly, millennial memorial sacrifices are not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, and nowhere in Revelation 20 – their supposed proof text for their paradigm. This Premillennial hope that they will be restored as memorials is therefore misplaced.

Where does it say in Ezekiel (or anywhere else) these sacrifices are memorial blood sacrifices? This is the crucial question on this matter.

Significantly, it is the question that brings a deafening silence from our Premillennial brethren. Premils need to furnish Scripture (Old Testament or New Testament) that say that these sacrifices were or will be a memorial. The fact is there is none. This concept cannot be found anywhere in the Word, it was most likely created by men that wanted to justify their futurist understanding of Old Testament passages. The fact is whilst it is taught in the Premillennial pulpits, colleges, and manuals, it is nowhere to be found in Holy Writ.

There is nowhere that these abolished sin offerings are said to be resurrected by God. If Premillennialists are so sure of their ground on this matter, it would help if they would furnish us with Scripture that explicitly supports this notion, instead of leaving us to guess or speculate as to their evidence? Saying all this, I believe it is a term invented by some smart Premil theorist to support his personal interpretation of Ezekiel 40 – 47, and sadly most Premils have run with it without ascertaining whether it enjoys any biblical warrant. It reminds me of the Prosperity nonsense that is deluding many today. No one dares to question it, but it is a distortion of truth.

Animal sacrifices were abolished at the cross and are no longer part of God's eternal plan of atonement. Christ became our final atonement for sin, thus superseding the repeated imperfect unsatisfactory Judaic religious system of sin offerings. On the new earth, Christ will be the exclusive eternal aide memoire of God’s only satisfactory and effective sin offering for mankind. There will no longer be any need for reminder-sacrifices or supplementary sin offerings, Christ will be all in all. One look at Christ hands will be all the memorial we need of Calvary. There is no need for the re-starting of countless, pointless, ineffective, unsatisfactory, futile sin offerings – when the Cross totally rendered then obsolete.

Presumably Christ is located in this millennial temple? It is amazing that all this slaughter and sweat (which is a result of the fall) is occurring around him as a remembrance of His death, while He sits there in the midst with His nail-pierced hands and feet – the people looking to other sacrifices for a revelation of the cross. The picture is absurd.

Why do we need such a so-called "object lesson" as some Premils claim? Is Christ's hands and feet not a good enough reminder of the cross? Where do we find this object lesson idea in the Bible? This is a question that is never answered with direct Scripture, or can it.

Paul

[starchild]

Im premil and haven't ever heard about this, But the rest makes sense, it would seem a little strange that the apostle John would be so excited for some more suffering before the Lord returned at the end of Revelation (seeing as how he's already on an island prison, of course, we dont know his conditions...).
That brings a question to mind, by believing that Christ won't come and rapture us, are stating that His power is to limited to save his followers from the tribulation? Seriously, I don't know where you stand on that, so an answer (no matter how "heated" you might think it is) would be welcome.

Later

[scourge39]

Paul,

Are you sure that Historic Premils believe that sacrifices will be offered during the Millennium? As far as I know, that's exclusively a Dispensational Premil view.

[wpm]

Paul,

Are you sure that Historic Premils believe that sacrifices will be offered during the Millennium? As far as I know, that's exclusively a Dispensational Premil view.

I used to be one, so I know that this is what was taught. I have also been around here a while, and know that this would be the standard Premil view.

Paul

[wpm]

That brings a question to mind, by believing that Christ won't come and rapture us, are stating that His power is to limited to save his followers from the tribulation? Seriously, I don't know where you stand on that, so an answer (no matter how "heated" you might think it is) would be welcome.

Later

But in the Pretrib theory you have millions of saints in the GT.

Are you stating that His power is too limited to save His followers from the tribulation?

Paul

[starchild]

Dispensational Premillenial Christianity, does it get any better? No it does not, it makes more sense than the unorganized alternative. And since i believe this, and haven't ever heard of what you're talking about, it must be some radical, old, bald, and dying out breed of premils you're talking about...or ones that i don't completley agree with, anyway...

I see your point, that by saying Christ would come back for his church at the rapture and leave those at the tribulation would be limiting His power as well. And obviously i don't agree with Tim LaHaye and whats his name Jenkins and their allegorical attrocity...(he should have stuck to writing marriage counseling books, sigh).

You have done something that no one else has ever been able to do for me, you have challenged a foundational belief that has been taught to me for years and I have no answer for myself even to this question. And so, rather than admit that im wrong, I admit that I don't know, and that now, I have a beckoning and nagging urge to research all this and find out for myself, what exactly have i been believing about the end times. Thanks for getting things going inside of my rather "narrow" visioned mind. I'll catch up with you later, oh, and sorry for any previous comments that may have seemed...rude.

Until later

[jeffweeder]

You have done something that no one else has ever been able to do for me, you have challenged a foundational belief that has been taught to me for years and I have no answer for myself even to this question. And so, rather than admit that im wrong, I admit that I don't know, and that now, I have a beckoning and nagging urge to research all this and find out for myself, what exactly have i been believing about the end times. Thanks for getting things going inside of my rather "narrow" visioned mind. I'll catch up with you later, oh, and sorry for any previous comments that may have seemed...rude.

Amen, way to go Starchild.
Great post.

[Cyberseeker]

Premils believe animal sacrifices will be reintroduced after the Coming of Christ in a supposed future millennium. They believe they will be memorial - reminding people of Calvary. However, a memorial by definition must look back.

Indeed we have such a memorial, but it is not animal sacrifice. It is the Lords Supper.

Good post Paul.

[eliyahu137]

WPM, you raise some good points. But I try to be as objective as possible when pondering these issues. None of the authors of the New Testament had the passion against blood sacrifices that most of us Christians do today. We have every reason to believe that the 12 apostles and Paul took part in all of the the temple rituals and sacrifices until the temple was destroyed. We also know that most or all of them interpreted the temple worship in a new light (Messiah). Apparently, whatever they thought, they did not see any of the temple worship necessarily as a bad thing, to the contrary. Why they continued participation in the temple worship is something that might stir us to re-examine our beliefs about our new relationship with God's law as Christians or Messianic Jews.

We can reason why it would be crazy to expect future millenial sacrifices all we want. But only time will reveal the truth. No matter if there is even a literal millennial temple at all or not, will it make any difference what we believe about it now in this age? Why take a dogmatic, firm stance on such a mute point? There is not any undisputed, substantial evidence at all, anywhere in the Bible, that suggests that there will be a millennial temple or any sort of sacrifices and offerings anyhow. If there will be any temple or sacrifices and/or offerings, it is apparently not a major point or it would be focused on more and would not be mentioned in only a few sparse passages.

[Kahtar]

WPM, you keep telling us premils what we believe, but keep coming up with these things I've never heard of in the 40+ years I've been premil. Interesting.

[Literalist-Luke]

WPM's argument is based on these verses:

Ezekiel 40:38 – “A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed.”

Ezekiel 40:41 – “So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered.”

Ezekiel 40:42 – “There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high. On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices.”

Ezekiel 43:24 – “You are to offer them before the LORD, and the priests are to sprinkle salt on them and sacrifice them as a burnt offering to the LORD.”

Ezekiel 44:11 – “They may serve in my sanctuary, having charge of the gates of the temple and serving in it; they may slaughter the burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people and stand before the people and serve them.”

Ezekiel 44:15 – “ ‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood,’ declares the Sovereign LORD.”

Ezekiel 46:2 – “The prince is to enter from the outside through the portico of the gateway and stand by the gatepost. The priests are to sacrifice his burnt offering and his fellowship offerings. He is to bow down in worship at the threshold of the gateway and then go out, but the gate will not be shut until evening.”

Ezekiel 46:24 – “He said to me, "These are the kitchens where those who minister at the temple are to cook the sacrifices of the people.”

WPM is correct that, from a Pre-Millennial point of view, there will be a re-institution of sacrifices during the Millennium. There is no other explanation for these verses within a Pre-Millennial framework. (I am Pre-Millennial, if any of you don't already know that.)

Here's my question for WPM: When did a Temple with Ezekiel's measurements ever exist? And if we're not to take these highly detailed and extremely specific measurements literally, then what is the purpose of Ezekiel 40-48?

[John146]

Premils believe animal sacrifices will be reintroduced after the Coming of Christ in a supposed future millennium. They believe they will be memorial - reminding people of Calvary. However, a memorial by definition must look back. Animal sacrifices are never depicted as such in the Old or the New Testament, rather the opposite – they look forward. Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of “good things to come” not a ‘memorial of things that have already been'. They simply pointed forward to the Cross. Interestingly, millennial memorial sacrifices are not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, and nowhere in Revelation 20 – their supposed proof text for their paradigm. This Premillennial hope that they will be restored as memorials is therefore misplaced.

Where does it say in Ezekiel (or anywhere else) these sacrifices are memorial blood sacrifices? This is the crucial question on this matter.

Nowhere. Here is what Ezekiel itself says would be the purpose of the sin offerings:

Ezekiel 45
17And 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
20Then 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.

Did Christ not already make reconciliation for the house of Israel and sanctify the people?

Romans 5
8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Ephesians 2
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Hebrews 2
16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

[John146]

WPM's argument is based on these verses:



WPM is correct that, from a Pre-Millennial point of view, there will be a re-institution of sacrifices during the Millennium. There is no other explanation for these verses within a Pre-Millennial framework. (I am Pre-Millennial, if any of you don't already know that.)

Here's my question for WPM: When did a Temple with Ezekiel's measurements ever exist? And if we're not to take these highly detailed and extremely specific measurements literally, then what is the purpose of Ezekiel 40-48?

I personally believe that the purpose of it was to show what God would have done for Israel had they only repented of their ways. I believe it was a conditional prophecy and Israel did not meet the conditions that God laid out for them in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled as it is described.

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.

[wpm]

Why take a dogmatic, firm stance on such a mute point? There is not any undisputed, substantial evidence at all, anywhere in the Bible, that suggests that there will be a millennial temple or any sort of sacrifices and offerings anyhow. If there will be any temple or sacrifices and/or offerings, it is apparently not a major point or it would be focused on more and would not be mentioned in only a few sparse passages.

The reason, I believe, we can take "a dogmatic, firm stance" is that the NT repeatedly and very clearly shows the superceding of the old sacrificial arrangement with the new superior and eternal work of Christ. It shows the end of sacrificial system (including the sin offerings). For any school of thought to advocate the resurrection of something that has been abolished must surely show a disregard for the new fuller revelation on this matter.

I will illustrate with passages that I have previously posted elsewhere.

Jesus was the one final sacrifice for sin. He was the eternal fufilment of every type and shadow in the OT which man could not keep. He removed the former systeme by His life, death and resurrection. Since God destroyed the Temple the natural Jew no longer can keep these unsatisfactory ordinances. Anyway, they were nailed to the cross in the death of Christ.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the final sacrifice for sin. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were nailed to the tree with Christ. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these animal sacrifices, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

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. Ephesians 2:15 also says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

Those who promote a return to the old system have failed to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the cross.

Hebrews 7:18 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.”

You say it is not done away with. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11). I choose to run with Scripture. It tells us, the “vail is done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Whether you agree or not, Hebrews 10:9 confirms, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

Paul

[wpm]

WPM's argument is based on these verses:



WPM is correct that, from a Pre-Millennial point of view, there will be a re-institution of sacrifices during the Millennium. There is no other explanation for these verses within a Pre-Millennial framework. (I am Pre-Millennial, if any of you don't already know that.)

Here's my question for WPM: When did a Temple with Ezekiel's measurements ever exist? And if we're not to take these highly detailed and extremely specific measurements literally, then what is the purpose of Ezekiel 40-48?

I will try and address your response/argument.

First of all we need to see what the NT says about these sin offerings that you anticipate. As I said above, they have been abolished in Christ. You say there are more offerings for sin. Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.” You say, there remains more sacrifices for sins,Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Scripture is more reliable.

Second, Ezekiel 40-47 describes the worship of God in the temple of God in this reading and identifies it specifically with the different Jewish sacrifices. This has caused much debate over the centuries. We must always remember Ezekiel’s audience was exclusively Old Testament Jews. Therefore, it seems like he was either trying to depict the impending New Testament era/economy in terms that would be easily understood by the listener/reader or it was a conditional offer which was subject to certain stipulations, which Israel never ever met.

The idea that Ezekiel is predicting a return to Old Covenant worship and the widespread slaughter of animals in a future millennium is preposterous and is dismissed by numerous explicit New Testament Scripture. Why would God restore animal sacrifices when He sent His Son to make one final all-sufficient sacrifice for sin? It is wrong to place greater weight on a difficult much-debated Old Testament prophecy, as Premils do, than to the consistent clear teaching of the New-Testament revelation. After all, it is the complete and final revelation of God’s truth. It seems therefore likely that Ezekiel’s temple was to be built under the first covenant, as can been seen by all the various Old Testament animal sacrifices, priestly ordinances and temple ceremonies. The shadow with all its intricate elements could find no resting home in the new economy, where such an administration was abolished and was replaced with greater promises.The Mosaic animal sacrifices and offerings are depicted in the New Testament as being totally removed, belonging to the inferior old Covenant period. They are always viewed in the past tense and never in the present or future sense.

Third, there is no mention of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 40 to Ezekiel 48. Ezekiel was taken in spirit to a high mountain towards the south was a structure like a city.

Fourth, Ezekiel 40-47 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy. The prophet Ezekiel was taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that was actually prevailing when he received it. Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”

In the vision Ezekiel witnessed greater things than what was around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that that we learn, he “fell upon” his “face.”

Ezekiel 43:10 basically outlines the value and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou 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.”

God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. They didn't and they never entered into the reality of that offer. God essentially shows Israel a picture of what could be if they would only turn from their sin and rebellion. It was a promise of better things if only they would submit to God’s demands. It involved an improved arrangement to what existed at the time of the proposal. It was essentially a mirror that God set up in Ezekiel’s day to allow Israel to see how far (even in that day) they fell short of the old covenant requirements. It was to let Israel compare themselves and their practices against this vision of what God desired for them. God has always instructed Israel in the ideal yet they always fell short. Israel usually failed to adhere to God's conditions. In this situatuation God’s gracious provision did not materialise.

God simply wanted Israel to “be ashamed of their iniquities.” This was nothing new; in fact, that has always been God’s desire for His people. This was a promise that was built upon righteous conditions. If they would be repentant and humble themselves then they would experience the superior splendour of this new temple.

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “And 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.”

Again, we can see this is a conditional promise, which Israel had to fulfil before it would come to pass. This was relevant to the Jews in Ezekiel's day. It was a promise addressed directly to them. Sadly, they didn't enter into the promise. The vision was never realised. However, there is nothing in the passage that would suggest that it is an active promise. Quite the opposite. A greater temple followed just a few hundred years after Ezekiel's conditional vision; a temple that would last forever – God’s spiritual temple.

Paul