Millennial Sacrifices???

[Joyfulparousia]

If the 10 commandments have been abolished does that mean we're off the hook if we do any of the above mentioned?

More like: Are we on the hook if we do any of the above mentioned?

[Joyfulparousia]

Three different eras. (1) OT conditional promise.

Someone must have fulfilled this passage if it's actually happens.

(2) NT reality.

Half of them went toward the eastern seas and half toward the western? Is "them" the preaching of the gospel? Really?

The gospel really was divided and went half towards the Mediterranean and half toward the Dead Sea?

(3) Future eternal hope.

Agreed.

[wpm]

Someone must have fulfilled this passage if it's actually happens.

That is your opinion.

Half of them went toward the eastern seas and half toward the western? Is "them" the preaching of the gospel? Really?

The gospel really was divided and went half towards the Mediterranean and half toward the Dead Sea?

I believe it is speaking of the Gospel going out to the Jews and Gentiles.

Agreed.

It is good that we agree on something.

Paul

[Marc B]

More like: Are we on the hook if we do any of the above mentioned?

Well as we all know or should know, the law is perfect. To be able to keep them all every day of your life without fail is impossible in the flesh which is why we all fall short, therefore the need for Jesus to fulfill them in the flesh on our behalf and atone for our sins on the cross on our behalf because He was able to live a sin free life from birth whereas we can't. If we could then Jesus wouldn't have had to die for us. You see not only did He fulfill the law's requirements of obedience but also their penalty for disobedience to them. That however does not excuse us from trying to overcome sin and keep the commandments as best we can. Since the law represents perfection in God's eyes and we will eventually be made perfect in our future spirit bodies that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for perfection in our current flesh bodies. Of course we'll make mistakes and have moments of weakness but in order to build Godly character worthy of reigning and teaching in the millennium, shouldn't we also lead by example just as Jesus did when He lived among us? Many pay Him lip service but how many actually try to imitate Him in life? I don't mean wearing robes and sandals and acting all holy and religious. I mean showing love and compassion to enemies as well as friends, how to worship our heavenly Father, and keeping His commandments as He taught us to do and did when he was here. Consider it basic training for your future position in God's Kingdom as a priest or king. Remember what he said about those who don't keep His commandments and teaches others to do the same in Matthew 5;19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I don't know about you but I'd rather be called a great guy by Jesus than a putz.

[Joyfulparousia]

That is your opinion.

I'm glad we've both made them clear.

I believe it is speaking of the Gospel going out to the Jews and Gentiles.

Eastern Sea = Gentiles? Western Sea = Jews? Is there a verse to support this idea?

It is good that we agree on something.

Indeed good chap

[Bing]

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

My dear fellow,
First, I should like to bring up an important issue of soteriology. We can deduce quite clearly from the Scripture (Hebrews 9:13 or Psalm 51:17, for instance) that salvation is not gained from adherence to blood animal sacrifice, nor has it ever been. No premillennial worth his salt would seriously contend that people might be saved, either in the Millennium or before or after it, by virtue of an animal sacrifice.

I understand this is not your controversy. Let us try and find your controversy. We shall observe some key scriptures and hopefully clear up some of this disagreement, once and for all. Ezekiel has a great deal to say about sacrifices, and so-called "Millennial temples". You have had it from premillennial sources that these include animal sacrifices during the Millennial Kingdom, as a memorial.

You have contended (or else I have presumed that you have contended) two key things against this. First, that animal sacrifices offered after the Christ event are an abomination to God, and secondly that sacrifices ought not be offered in this day and age, due to their obsolescence.

I would like to point out that the apostle Paul offered sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple; not in pursuit of salvation, or even as a remembrance, but to "become all things to all men". I would also bring up that we as Christians are commended to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, and that the very act of "taking up one's cross" and following after the Lord involves sacrifice - not as an act of justifying salvation, but perhaps as an act of sanctification?

Anyway; to Ezekiel. I find it very revealing that Ezekiel's vision included not merely "sacrifices", but explicitly sacrifices "to make ATONEMENT for [Israel]" (45:15, 17).

Now, whatever one's view of progressive revelation, and Ezekiel's understanding (or lack of understanding) of Christ's impending sacrifice that would reveal the uselessness of the prior sacrificial system under the law (Hebrews 7:18), we must understand that Ezekiel's vision is no longer viable, if we are to maintain a consistent soteriological hermeneutic.

We must therefore conclude one of three things about Ezekiel's vision contained in chapters 40-48. Either they have failed and God's word is subject to change, or else it will be fulfilled in the future, and Christ's death and resurrection are to be superceded by another event, or else this prophecy itself, as seen by Ezekiel, is to be superceded by a yet greater and more wonderful realisation of its truths than was granted for that seer to behold.

God cannot lie, and His word does not return to Him void; likewise to assume the second of these options, that Christ's death and resurrection were insufficient, is bald-faced heresy.

We must therefore consider that Ezekiel's vision of a future temple where the manifest glory of the Lord dwells for access to a nation of priests will be superseded by a Bride who is the temple in an age when the glory of the Lord covers the entire earth. We must consider that Ezekiel's vision of levites ministering to the Lord will be realised in a world when all believers who overcome are given the honour of being called a pillar in the House of the Lord. We must even consider that Ezekiel's vision of the blood covering the mercy seat will be fulfilled when we believers, together in a holy priesthood, can behold the shed blood of the Lamb, and the perfect offering that differed from the offering of the High Priest in being sufficient once and for all.

I believe, wpm, that you are attacking the wrong aspect of premillennialism. Do not quibble over whether or not the sacrifices in Ezekiel are memorials or salvific. You and I both know that they are not salvific, so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me.

Do not worry about whether sacrifices exist. Of course they do. Do not worry about whether these sacrifices are salvific. Nobody says they are. Instead, look at Ezekiel and wonder, if these are unfulfilled, and cannot ever be fulfilled as the prophet foresaw, then how SHALL they be fulfilled?

Ponder upon that, friend.

[wpm]

My dear fellow,
First, I should like to bring up an important issue of soteriology. We can deduce quite clearly from the Scripture (Hebrews 9:13 or Psalm 51:17, for instance) that salvation is not gained from adherence to blood animal sacrifice, nor has it ever been. No premillennial worth his salt would seriously contend that people might be saved, either in the Millennium or before or after it, by virtue of an animal sacrifice.

I understand this is not your controversy. Let us try and find your controversy. We shall observe some key scriptures and hopefully clear up some of this disagreement, once and for all. Ezekiel has a great deal to say about sacrifices, and so-called "Millennial temples". You have had it from premillennial sources that these include animal sacrifices during the Millennial Kingdom, as a memorial.

You have contended (or else I have presumed that you have contended) two key things against this. First, that animal sacrifices offered after the Christ event are an abomination to God, and secondly that sacrifices ought not be offered in this day and age, due to their obsolescence.

I would like to point out that the apostle Paul offered sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple; not in pursuit of salvation, or even as a remembrance, but to "become all things to all men". I would also bring up that we as Christians are commended to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, and that the very act of "taking up one's cross" and following after the Lord involves sacrifice - not as an act of justifying salvation, but perhaps as an act of sanctification?

Anyway; to Ezekiel. I find it very revealing that Ezekiel's vision included not merely "sacrifices", but explicitly sacrifices "to make ATONEMENT for [Israel]" (45:15, 17).

Now, whatever one's view of progressive revelation, and Ezekiel's understanding (or lack of understanding) of Christ's impending sacrifice that would reveal the uselessness of the prior sacrificial system under the law (Hebrews 7:18), we must understand that Ezekiel's vision is no longer viable, if we are to maintain a consistent soteriological hermeneutic.

We must therefore conclude one of three things about Ezekiel's vision contained in chapters 40-48. Either they have failed and God's word is subject to change, or else it will be fulfilled in the future, and Christ's death and resurrection are to be superceded by another event, or else this prophecy itself, as seen by Ezekiel, is to be superceded by a yet greater and more wonderful realisation of its truths than was granted for that seer to behold.

God cannot lie, and His word does not return to Him void; likewise to assume the second of these options, that Christ's death and resurrection were insufficient, is bald-faced heresy.

We must therefore consider that Ezekiel's vision of a future temple where the manifest glory of the Lord dwells for access to a nation of priests will be superseded by a Bride who is the temple in an age when the glory of the Lord covers the entire earth. We must consider that Ezekiel's vision of levites ministering to the Lord will be realised in a world when all believers who overcome are given the honour of being called a pillar in the House of the Lord. We must even consider that Ezekiel's vision of the blood covering the mercy seat will be fulfilled when we believers, together in a holy priesthood, can behold the shed blood of the Lamb, and the perfect offering that differed from the offering of the High Priest in being sufficient once and for all.

I believe, wpm, that you are attacking the wrong aspect of premillennialism. Do not quibble over whether or not the sacrifices in Ezekiel are memorials or salvific. You and I both know that they are not salvific, so what does it matter if there are memorial sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom? I sacrifice my time and money and possessions daily for Christ, without believing that my works save me.

Do not worry about whether sacrifices exist. Of course they do. Do not worry about whether these sacrifices are salvific. Nobody says they are. Instead, look at Ezekiel and wonder, if these are unfulfilled, and cannot ever be fulfilled as the prophet foresaw, then how SHALL they be fulfilled?

Ponder upon that, friend.

The one thing you don't allow is the one that seems to carry the most weight. You must remember, Israel in Ezekiel’s day had sunk into deep idolatry and awful iniquity. God exposed the extent of the evil that existed within the camp in Ezekiel 43:8, saying, “they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.”

Notwithstanding, God, as was /is His custom, reached out in His grace, mercy and love to them, encouraging them to turn from their wicked ways. He promised that He would bless them if they obeyed His voice.

He commanded them (in V9): “Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.”

Ezekiel 43:10 goes on to outline 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.”


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.

Paul

[Bing]

I agree, friend. I am especially glad that you rightly point out Ezekiel 43:11, and its clear conditional nature.

My point in my closing two paragraphs was the allowance that God is not perturbed, nor His intentions retarded by mankind's disobedience. When Saul, for instance, failed in his role as Israel's king who ought to have birthed the Messianic line (1 Samuel 13:13) the Lord raised up David in his place. Likewise, when Adam and Eve fell into sin, God refused to abandon them, but set into motion the entirety of redemptive history. From Israel itself to the prophetic promises, biblical history is replete with God's faithfulness superseding man's follies.

I contend that following Israel's failure to hearken to Ezekiel's warnings and incentives, the Lord did not abandon His plan. He did not abandon His desire to have a kingdom of priests serve Him - we are now that kingdom. He did not abandon His plan to dwell with humanity - Revelation 21:1 bears that out. He did not abandon His plan to renew and heal the earth - Romans 8 at least bears witness to this.

It may not come about exactly as Ezekiel foresaw, but God's plans cannot be sidetracked, and we are even now awaiting the pith of Ezekiel's promised land, albeit far greater than the promise the prophet saw. That promise is the resurrection and the eternal communion with the Lord forever.

[wpm]

I agree, friend. I am especially glad that you rightly point out Ezekiel 43:11, and its clear conditional nature.

My point in my closing two paragraphs was the allowance that God is not perturbed, nor His intentions retarded by mankind's disobedience. When Saul, for instance, failed in his role as Israel's king who ought to have birthed the Messianic line (1 Samuel 13:13) the Lord raised up David in his place. Likewise, when Adam and Eve fell into sin, God refused to abandon them, but set into motion the entirety of redemptive history. From Israel itself to the prophetic promises, biblical history is replete with God's faithfulness superseding man's follies.

I contend that following Israel's failure to hearken to Ezekiel's warnings and incentives, the Lord did not abandon His plan. He did not abandon His desire to have a kingdom of priests serve Him - we are now that kingdom. He did not abandon His plan to dwell with humanity - Revelation 21:1 bears that out. He did not abandon His plan to renew and heal the earth - Romans 8 at least bears witness to this.

It may not come about exactly as Ezekiel foresaw, but God's plans cannot be sidetracked, and we are even now awaiting the pith of Ezekiel's promised land, albeit far greater than the promise the prophet saw. That promise is the resurrection and the eternal communion with the Lord forever.

We have agreement. Boy, am I am compromising or are you seeing the light?

[Cyberseeker]

I would like to point out that the apostle Paul offered sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple; not in pursuit of salvation, or even as a remembrance, but to "become all things to all men".

No he never. If you are referring to the Acts 21 narrative, God dragged him out before he could make such a mistake.

God didn't want the temple anymore either for salvation, or remembrance, or to "become all things to all men." It is probably one of the worst errors Paul ever made.

[Bing]

We have agreement. Boy, am I am compromising or are you seeing the light?

I think we are both seeing the light a little, wpm. You and I have always, I think, seen eye to eye on soteriology, and the divinity of Christ, or on the return of Christ and the glorification of the saints. We do not see eye to eye on certain aspects of eschatology, but I have been obtuse in dealing with you, and you have at times been difficult for me to deal with.

I take this thaw in relations as an extremely positive sign, and I would certainly like to expand this discussion with you as a starting point for a general critical look at systematic hermeneutics.

[wpm]

I think we are both seeing the light a little, wpm. You and I have always, I think, seen eye to eye on soteriology, and the divinity of Christ, or on the return of Christ and the glorification of the saints. We do not see eye to eye on certain aspects of eschatology, but I have been obtuse in dealing with you, and you have at times been difficult for me to deal with.

I take this thaw in relations as an extremely positive sign, and I would certainly like to expand this discussion with you as a starting point for a general critical look at systematic hermeneutics.

I agree. I feel we are all on the Potter's wheel in a process of perfection. I appreciate your heart here as always and respect the manner you engage. I do prefer harmony and discord. After all, we are family. As Churchill once said: 'jaw jaw is better than war war.'

Paul

[jeffweeder]

I for one would like to witness such a dialogue, as i think highly of you both.
Please cont'
Love you both.

[Bing]

I agree. I feel we are all on the Potter's wheel in a process of perfection. I appreciate your heart here as always and respect the manner you engage. I do prefer harmony and discord. After all, we are family. As Churchill once said: 'jaw jaw is better than war war.'

Paul

What, what? An Irishman quoting Churchill?!

Keep your eyes peeled, friend. I have had a busy few weeks, but I hope to be able to devote some attention to a new thread or two in the near future.

[wpm]

What, what? An Irishman quoting Churchill?!

Keep your eyes peeled, friend. I have had a busy few weeks, but I hope to be able to devote some attention to a new thread or two in the near future.

But I am British. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. I carry a British passport. I worked as British Police Officer. What more can I say. 66% of people in Northern Ireland vote to remain British. Are you not English and British?