Millennial Sacrifices???

[wpm]

I am not sure I follow you here, Israel was called the wife of God, but not the bride? The Church being the Bride of Christ, would not a nation of Israel, a faithful nation, restored, repentant, be the faithful wife, not a bride?

Are you suggestiing God was a polygamist?

Paul

[wpm]

53 times thru my mentor's videos, cds, tapes, dvds, lectures, personal contact, interviews, review of the literature.

My mentor tells me that He finished all these old testament types on the cross.

Paul

[wpm]

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)

That is actually a very potent point, because the OT doesn't fully cover it, the NT definitely forbids it.

Paul

[quiet dove]

Are you suggestiing God was a polygamist?

Paul

No, I did not say that at all.

I am sure you believe as I do, in God the Father, and God the Son. Is the Father's wife the Son's Bride?

[quiet dove]

So, are you spiritualising Ezekiel 40-47? Are you saying this is all symbolic?

Ezekiel 45:17 tells us: “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.”

Did Jesus not make a final perfect reconciliation for the house of Israel at the cross? Why would God then institute the slaughter of countless animals in the future to also reconcile Israel? Did Christ not fully accomplish this on the cross at Calvary? Is Calvary not satisfactory enough?

Ezekiel 46:19-20 declares,“After he brought me through the entry, which was at the side of the gate, into the holy chambers of the priests, which looked toward the north: and, behold, there was a place on the two sides westward. 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.”

I thought Jesus did this? Hebrews 10:9-10 directly and explicitly nails the lie to this theory that men will be one day in the future be sanctified by the restoration of more the abolished animal sacrifices: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Why would believers need anything else?

Paul

I re-read my post, I am not sure where in my post you gathered I spiritualized Ezekiel or said anything about Christ sacrifice not being sufficient?

Are you saying that the blood of bulls and goats was sufficient before the cross to wash away sins and that is how men got saved before the Cross?

[wpm]

No, I did not say that at all.

I am sure you believe as I do, in God the Father, and God the Son. Is the Father's wife the Son's Bride?

Where are your Scripture for relating the body to only the saints after the cross? Where are your Scripture for restricting Christ from the Godhead in His relationship with OT Israel?

Paul

[wpm]

I re-read my post, I am not sure where in my post you gathered I spiritualized Ezekiel or said anything about Christ sacrifice not being sufficient?

Are you saying that the blood of bulls and goats was sufficient before the cross to wash away sins and that is how men got saved before the Cross?

Maybe I misunderstood you. Sorry if I did. I thought you were suggesting that it wasn't a literal blood-sacrifice. I was responding to your statement:

So if in the Millennial God says kill a bull, then thats what will be done, has nothing to do with atoning for sin.

What has it to do with then? This is what I am trying to establish.

Paul

[quiet dove]

Maybe I misunderstood you. Sorry if I did. I thought you were suggesting that it wasn't a literal blood-sacrifice. I was responding to your statement:



What has it to do with then? This is what I am trying to establish.

Paul

It means just that, if God says kill a bull then that is what will be done.

I'll ask again, did killing a bull before the cross, wash a man clean, cleansing him from his sinful nature. Did the sacrifice of the bull make him righteous before God?

[wpm]

It means just that, if God says kill a bull then that is what will be done.

I'll ask again, did killing a bull before the cross, wash a man clean, cleansing him from his sinful nature. Did the sacrifice of the bull make him righteous before God?

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

Paul

[Joyfulparousia]

Ok, speculation is all we have here. The $64,000,000 question is, where does it mention these so-called memorial sacrifices? You need to answer this if your argument is to have any credence.

These are celebrated in the millennium:
The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).


The sacrifices were in fact for a memorial.

...it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves. Ex. 30:16

...And the priest shall burn it [fine flour and oil will frankincense] as a memorial on the altar, an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord. Lev. 2:2

The blood of bulls could never "take away" or "blot out" sins, they were simply an appeasement.

Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20 tell us these are "sin offering[s]." Are they remembering sin??? How can there be sin offerings when Christ was the final "sin offering"?

They are remembering mercy.

Are Christ's hands and feet not an adequate enough memorial for all eternity???

Hmm...the better arugument might be for communion on this one. Logistically, it might be difficult for millions of people to come and look at Christ's hands and feet to remember His mercy and atoning work. This would simply take too much time.

So, to whom was this conditional covenant of Eze. 40-44 given?

[Joyfulparousia]

Hi Joyfulparousia, I realize that this wasn't addressed to me but I just couldn't resist tossing in my . Sorry....

I forgive you.

I think that the Isa 66:18-21 issue addresses the call to all Jews scattered throughout the nations in the first century.

Gentile priests and Levites?

The Gospel was at first given exclusively to the Jews. Even right after the ascension, the apostles and disciples would only share the gospel with Jews regardless of what nation they were in.

What about brother Cornelius?

I don't think that Isaiah intends for all Jews to literally be brought out of the nations but rather as a calling for them as priests to help take the Gospel to the nations.

You've actually reversed the meaning of the passage to say that they will go out instead of what Isaiah explicitly says will be a gathering in:

It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. Is 66:18

Then they shall bring all your brethren...to My holy mountain. Is. 66:20


These verses have not been fulfilled and we can see that the operation of priests and Levites (vs. 21) and the visits of Gentiles up Jerusalem (vs. 23) implies something yet future.

1Pe 2:5
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Rev 1:6
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Beautiful verses that I love. But your application of these verses to said priests and Levites mentioned in verse 21 of Is 66 may be in error. I mean no slight.

The verses mentioned above speak the comprehensive identity of believers a priests before the Lord - a very important, and overlooked ministry. Isaiah plainly tells us in verse 21 that only some of these are chosen to be priests and Levites, therefore negating the application of these previously mentioned verses to this specific group.

I'm not sure if there is anything that says don't sacrifice,

That's because there isn't.

but there are warnings about sacrifice and adherence to the Mosaic laws. The Book of Galatians addresses the problem that arose in Paul's day when Jewish believers were forcing gentile to become Jewish proselytes before becoming eligible for the Gospel.

Gal 1:6-8
(6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
(7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
(8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Paul goes on to point out the hypocrisy of those that would oppress gentile believers when he said.

Gal 6:13
(13) For they themselves having been circumcised do not even keep the Law, but they desire you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.


James points out that anyone that keeps the law is obligated to keep it all. To stumble in one aspect makes one guilty of the entirety of it.

Jas 2:10
(10) For whoever shall keep all the Law, but stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all.

So should the law be avoided, It looks to me like that is exactly what Paul is saying

Gal 5:1
(1) Then stand firm in the freedom with which Christ made us free and do not be held again with a yoke of slavery.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. We still believe the 10 commandments are applicable in the NC.

Where does it say, "Do not sacrifice"? Where does it say that sacrifices are the law?

[Joyfulparousia]

I'm inclined to agree--I'm not sure either--but Scripture does speak to good stewardship and an appreciation for God's creation. The animal cruelty and the destruction of one of God's creation, knowing that the sacrifice accomplishes nothing

Fret not friend, the sacrificial system ended the life of animals in a humane way.

I would think goes against Scripture. And it strikes me as a sin of the heart, just as would other acts of animal cruelty.

Except for the thousands of years of sacrifice that have already been done. Of course, animals are now safe under the new covenant, lol.

[Joyfulparousia]

It means just that, if God says kill a bull then that is what will be done.

I'll ask again, did killing a bull before the cross, wash a man clean, cleansing him from his sinful nature. Did the sacrifice of the bull make him righteous before God?

ah ha! right. God still made the man clean. Sorry if I blew the secret.

[wpm]

These are celebrated in the millennium:
The Feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-21), the passover (Eze. 45:21), the Feast of trumpets (Eze. 45:25). (see also Isa. 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Mal. 3:3-4).


The sacrifices were in fact for a memorial.

...it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves. Ex. 30:16

...And the priest shall burn it [fine flour and oil will frankincense] as a memorial on the altar, an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord. Lev. 2:2

The blood of bulls could never "take away" or "blot out" sins, they were simply an appeasement.




They are remembering mercy.



Hmm...the better arugument might be for communion on this one. Logistically, it might be difficult for millions of people to come and look at Christ's hands and feet to remember His mercy and atoning work. This would simply take too much time.

So, to whom was this conditional covenant of Eze. 40-44 given?

There is nowhere in Ezekiel 40-47 that it suggests that these will be memorials to look back to the cross. After the Lord's glorious return we definitely do not need the mass slaughter of animals to remind people about Christ. Surely the Word of God is eternal? Surely it will be available in your millennium? We don't need to see Jesus hands literally to believe He died for us.

Paul

[ScottJohnson]

I forgive you.

Thank you

Gentile priests and Levites?

Maybe. My point was that Isaiah was talking about the conversion of so many Jews in the first century, just after the ascension. These Jews did in fact set the wheels in motion. They took the Gospel to the nations. Bear in mind that I included Isaiah 66:19 into the context. Where you have somehow placed this text in a future semi-temporal kingdom, I placed it in the first century.

Isa 66:19
(19) And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those who escape from them to the nations of Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, drawers of the bow; to Tubal and Javan, to the far away coasts that have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the nations.

What about brother Cornelius?

I'm inclined to believe that Peter shared the gospel with Cornelius sometime after the ascension, I would guess about three years. Prior to this, the Gospel was exclusively given to Jews. Cornelius and his family were the first gentiles to have received the good news. Acts 10:45-47 describes the surprise that Peter and his Jewish entourage displayed upon seeing gentiles receive the Holy Spirit. Pretty well indicates that a precedent had been set.

Also in Acts 13:46, at probably around the same time, we see in Antioch where Paul and Barnabas proclaim that the word was to be spoken to the Jews first, but since they would deem themselves not worthy of eternal life they turned to nations. Thus the Gospel began it's flow to the gentiles.

Act 13:46
(46) But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken first to you; but since you indeed thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations.

You've actually reversed the meaning of the passage to say that they will go out instead of what Isaiah explicitly says will be a gathering in:

It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. Is 66:18

Then they shall bring all your brethren...to My holy mountain. Is. 66:20

Not necessary, vs 19 speaks of a group that escapes and and will declare God's glory among the nations. Some of these are set aside as priests and Levites. Both Peter and John speak of these in the following verses;

1Pe 2:5
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Rev 1:6
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

....they just haven't been brought to the holy mountain as of yet. This will take place at the second coming.

These verses have not been fulfilled and we can see that the operation of priests and Levites (vs. 21) and the visits of Gentiles up Jerusalem (vs. 23) implies something yet future.

I disagree, at least in part. Under the Mosaic Law. only Levites were to hold the office of priest. Were Peter and John speaking of Levites in 1Peter 2:5; 2:9 and Rev 1:6? It's not that the prophecy in question has been fulfilled but rather it's in the process of being fulfilled. It will find it's complete fulfillment at the second coming.

Beautiful verses that I love. But your application of these verses to said priests and Levites mentioned in verse 21 of Is 66 may be in error. I mean no slight.

The verses mentioned above speak the comprehensive identity of believers a priests before the Lord - a very important, and overlooked ministry. Isaiah plainly tells us in verse 21 that only some of these are chosen to be priests and Levites, therefore negating the application of these previously mentioned verses to this specific group.

Possibly, but it also doesn't say that these that are chosen to be levites and priests are set aside for same exact functions that the aaronite priest performed in the temple.

Rom 15:16
(16) for me to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the nations, sacredly ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Php 2:17
(17) But if indeed I am poured out on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice; yea, I rejoice with you all.
1Pe 2:5
(5) you also as living stones are being built a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Heb 13:16
(16) But do not be forgetful of doing good and sharing, for God is well pleased with such sacrifices.

The offerings were the sanctified souls of the people of the nations. The acts of Love. Those that make these offerings to God, I believe are the priests that he has set aside in Isa 22:21

That's because there isn't.

No but as I pointed out, the NT teaches that the law including the sacrificial system is considered to be a dangerous snare and an unnecessary burden. This being the case why would a glorified Christ (who incidentally served as the ultimate sacrifice in His death), re institute a religious system that has been proven to be a heavy yoke. Didn't Jesus say in Matt 11:30 that His yoke was easy and His burden was light?

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. We still believe the 10 commandments are applicable in the NC.

Jesus did come to fulfill the law, and what is that fulfillment? "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength and likewise, love your neighbor as yourself. The fulfillment of the law is love and and Christ Jesus is Love.

Where does it say, "Do not sacrifice"?

As I said before, I don't think that NT does say that it is forbidden to sacrifice. If you should choose to do so then please, by all means have at it. I strongly recommend reading the Book of Galatians first though.

Where does it say that sacrifices are the law?

I believe that book of Deuteronomy is where the directives for sacrifices are tied to the law. I can't give you chapter and verse though.