Millennial Sacrifices???

[Cyberseeker]

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".

Several things should be remembered about this incident regarding Paul and the Nazirite vow.

Firstly, God told him not to go. This was through the prophet Agabus.

Secondly, the preparation for the Nazirite vow took seven days before the sacrifices and the day was aborted by a riot on the 6th day. I believe that God did not want to see it go ahead.

Thirdly, Paul was talked into it (against his better judgement) by James and the elders at Jerusalem.

Fourthly the elders at Jerusalem were under duress themselves and there is good reason to believe they were not thinking straight. They had buckled under pressure from Judaizers before this occasion and we need to remember that Jerusalem was ready to 'blow' throughout the AD60’s.

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.

Nope, but AD70 wouldn't have happened. And he might have let them keep the temple for a museum.

Cyber

[wpm]

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

The Hebrew word kaphar (Strong's 3722) is a primitive root meaning to cover, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel.

The Old Testament Day of Atonement covered over sin but it never removed it. The animal sacrifices were imperfect unsatisfactory coverings accepted by God until Christ offered up His perfect once all-sufficient self sacrifice. The old system of repeated sacrifices (types) was terminated in God’s economy through the once all-sufficient satisfactory sacrifice of Christ at Calvary when God’s only begotten Son became the final sacrifice for sin. Whilst the Jews continued their divinely abolished temple sacrifices for forty more years, God did not recognize them. Such imperfect sacrifices would never again appease the wrath of Almighty God, as the death of Christ perfectly satisfied the one all-sufficient, final atoning sacrifice for sin forever.

Justice demands that Almighty God must punish sin. Christ our great high priest in voluntary laying down His life for his sheep (John 10:11) took the place of sinners and suffered on their behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21, Matthew 20:28). In doing so, He reconciled the elect sinner to God (Colossians 1: 20-21).

Paul

[wpm]

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?

What if Adam hadn't sinned? Yes, God keeps His promises, but man normally doesn't. That is why Christ had to intervene on man's behalf, he could never keep a promise. He failed through sin every time.

Paul

[markdrums]

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?

I have to firmly disagree with that idea.

You have to remember what the whole sacrificial system was for. It was a foreshadow that pointed forward to the ULTIMATE sacrifice in Jesus.
To say God would be satisfied with keeping the animal sacrifices in place, or that he should be satisfied with that, is dangerous.
God was never pleased with the blood of sacrificed animals. He didn't "enjoy them or take pleasure in them". They never made him happy.

Even IF the Jews had accepted Jesus, the Roman Empire, or one of the nearby kings of another land, would have had him killed anyway; because what Jesus taught, was in opposition to what Caesar's laws were. He STILL would have been a threat to their Empire.

Also, God never wanted a temple as a permanent fixture... it was also merely a shadow of the ULTIMATE, FINAL temple- Jesus himself! He BECAME THE temple.

God wanted Israel to repent. He told them countless time to do so, & warned them repeatedly about the judgment that would come upon them if they did not.

The temple in Ezekiel is another example of Israel failing to keep God's commands. They didn't follow his instructions, & that temple was never built, nor will it ever be.
Ezekiel is not describing some yet future temple to be re-built in the days or years ahead. It was the temple that "should have been" at the time... but Israel fell short.

All in all, The crucifixion was necessary. From day one of Adam's fall to sin.

[IPet2_9]

What if Adam hadn't sinned? Yes, God keeps His promises, but man normally doesn't. That is why Christ had to intervene on man's behalf, he could never keep a promise. He failed through sin every time.

I always say that this is why "God changes," too. Even in dispensationalism (which I don't subscribe to), the reason for every single new dispensation is because of Man's fall.

[markdrums]

I always say that this is why "God changes," too. Even in dispensationalism (which I don't subscribe to), the reason for every single new dispensation is because of Man's fall.
[/size][/font]

I don't know that I'd call it "God changing".... He knew from the very beginning (and before) what would happend, what the consequences would be, & what it would take to "fix it," so to speak.

Remember,
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, and today, and forever.

No "change" necessary!


That's why I too, don't have the dispensational viewpoint.

[yoSAMite]

Cyber replied to BroRog

Originally Posted by BroRog
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.
Nope, but AD70 wouldn't have happened. And he might have let them keep the temple for a museum.

I think even if they repented, something akin to AD70 would have happened. Luke19:42-44 seems to suggest that the temple destruction was because the Jews didn't recognize the coming of the Messiah as Daniel predicted. Luke 19:42-44 "Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day ....

[Cyberseeker]

Sure Sam, but Jesus already knew that the Jews of that day were going to reject him, the true temple.

BroRog was speaking hypothetically when he said, "what if Israel DID have a change of heart?" And I was replying hypothetically when I said, "Nope, but AD70 wouldn't have happened. And he might have let them keep the temple for a museum."

I was half serious about it making a good museum - that is - unless some future generation started making more out of it than they should. You know - like the serpent in the wilderness. (2 Kings 18:4) Hmmm, maybe just as well God kicked it in the guts!

[the rookie]

You seem to be drawing lots of conclusions here, but I can't quite follow how you came to them?

Several things should be remembered about this incident regarding Paul and the Nazirite vow.

Firstly, God told him not to go. This was through the prophet Agabus.

Why was Paul told by God not to go? Are you insinuating that God was trying to hinder Paul from finishing his vow? Where do you read that in the text itself?

Secondly, the preparation for the Nazirite vow took seven days before the sacrifices and the day was aborted by a riot on the 6th day. I believe that God did not want to see it go ahead.

What in the text would lead you to draw that conclusion?

Thirdly, Paul was talked into it (against his better judgement) by James and the elders at Jerusalem.

Where did you read that Paul acted against his better judgment? Does this make Paul a superior theologian and apostle than James? Shall we nullify the epistle of James since he appears to be a "pro-sacrifice" apostle? What about his requirements for Gentiles at the Jerusalem council - are they in question because of his suspect judgement in this instance?

Fourthly the elders at Jerusalem were under duress themselves and there is good reason to believe they were not thinking straight. They had buckled under pressure from Judaizers before this occasion and we need to remember that Jerusalem was ready to 'blow' throughout the AD60’s.

When had Paul ever given in to that kind of logic or duress? Wouldn't that make Paul just as culpable? Where in the text are you drawing these conclusions? It seems as if you have a lot of energy to absolve Paul, but the logic doesn't quite add up.

[the rookie]

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?

I agree, the logic doesn't hold up.

[Cyberseeker]

You seem to be drawing lots of conclusions here, but I can't quite follow how you came to them?
...

it seems as if you have a lot of energy to absolve Paul, but the logic doesn't quite add up.

I stand by each of those 4 points made but it will take a thread of its own. Yes, the scriptures are there and no, Paul never performed animal sacrifice. Ill try to get to starting a topic one day.

[Joyfulparousia]

Maybe this is a blatantly obvious question, but if Israel was given opportunity to enter this "conditional covenant" by building the temple that Ezekiel was shown, then why didn't Ezra attempt to rebuild the temple according the plans laid out in Ezekiel's prophecy?

If Israel received such precise measurements by this vision, why then go back to Jerusalem and build something completely different?

[wpm]

Sure Sam, but Jesus already knew that the Jews of that day were going to reject him, the true temple.

BroRog was speaking hypothetically when he said, "what if Israel DID have a change of heart?" And I was replying hypothetically when I said, "Nope, but AD70 wouldn't have happened. And he might have let them keep the temple for a museum."

I was half serious about it making a good museum - that is - unless some future generation started making more out of it than they should. You know - like the serpent in the wilderness. (2 Kings 18:4) Hmmm, maybe just as well God kicked it in the guts!

What is more, if the wording is conditional in the text (and it is), then it is conditional in the supposed Premil future millennium. It is all dependant upon natural Israel turning to Christ in full obedience for a full 1,000 yrs, and that is no foregone conclusion.

Paul

[IPet2_9]

then why didn't Ezra attempt to rebuild the temple according the plans laid out in Ezekiel's prophecy?

I think Ezra DID attempt to build it to according to spec. He didn't have the resources. Not enough faithful Jews wanted to return from Babylon. Those that did, they were fixated on their own houses too much.

Haggai 1:4"Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?"

[markdrums]

I think Ezra DID attempt to build it to according to spec. He didn't have the resources. Not enough faithful Jews wanted to return from Babylon. Those that did, they were fixated on their own houses too much.

Haggai 1:4"Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?"

Right! They fell short.
Ezekiel wasn't describing a far future temple which many people think is still yet to be built, (and usher in the AntiChrist & so on...) The temple Ezekiel described, is the temple that "should have been, but never was. Nor will it ever be.)

They fell away from their faith, & became wrapped up in their own wants.
There won't be another temple, with reinstituted sacrifices. That OLD system is finished. It's been superceded, or FULFILLED through Christ. Those that think Jesus wants a new temple & new sacrifices are entirely missing the point.