PDA

View Full Version : Millennial Sacrifices???



wpm
Aug 8th 2008, 05:20 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 05:38 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 05:53 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 05:56 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 05:58 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 06:08 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 07:10 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 09:10 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 11:41 AM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 12:45 PM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 03:13 PM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 04:03 PM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 04:17 PM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 04:23 PM
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
Aug 8th 2008, 04:30 PM
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

Literalist-Luke
Aug 9th 2008, 02:30 AM
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.
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.So, since Israel didn't accept God's "conditions", then you're both saying that what we have today is God's "Plan B"? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif

wpm
Aug 9th 2008, 02:44 AM
So, since Israel didn't accept God's "conditions", then you're both saying that what we have today is God's "Plan B"? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif

No more so than the fall in the Garden. It was all part of God's providential sovereign overriding plan. God knew that they couldn't keep it, just like Adam and Eve couldn't at the start. When God said in Genesis 2:17 "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" He knew they would transgress. The cross was God's blueprint from the beginning. God, as God, can make demands upon mankind fully knowing they won't keep it and knowing that Christ alone is the only one that can fulfil the perfect plan of God. That was the case in the story before us. It is just another example of how weak, disobedient and prone to sin he is.

2,000 years ago Christ entered into this sin-cursed world with the purpose of becoming the one final sacrifice for sin, taking upon Himself the penalty that belonged to man, and releasing Him from his bondage.Revelation 13:8 tells us that Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” He was predestined to come into this world as a substitutionary sacrifice, without which no man could be saved. 1 Peter 1:19 confirms that Christ was “a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

There was a predetermined blueprint that Christ had to fulfil – He did perfectly.

Paul

Literalist-Luke
Aug 9th 2008, 06:25 AM
No more so than the fall in the Garden. It was all part of God's providential sovereign overriding plan. God knew that they couldn't keep it, just like Adam and Eve couldn't at the start. When God said in Genesis 2:17 "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" He knew they would transgress. The cross was God's blueprint from the beginning. God, as God, can make demands upon mankind fully knowing they won't keep it and knowing that Christ alone is the only one that can fulfil the perfect plan of God. That was the case in the story before us. It is just another example of how weak, disobedient and prone to sin he is.

2,000 years ago Christ entered into this sin-cursed world with the purpose of becoming the one final sacrifice for sin, taking upon Himself the penalty that belonged to man, and releasing Him from his bondage.Revelation 13:8 tells us that Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” He was predestined to come into this world as a substitutionary sacrifice, without which no man could be saved. 1 Peter 1:19 confirms that Christ was “a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

There was a predetermined blueprint that Christ had to fulfil – He did perfectly.I guess what doesn't make sense is why God would reveal such elaborate plans to Ezekiel if He knew they would come to naught. He didn't reveal any elaborate plans to Adam & Eve.

ananias
Aug 9th 2008, 06:38 AM
Premils believe animal sacrifices will be reintroduced after the Coming of Christ it.

Paul

Please, Paul - don't speak for me - putting words in my mouth. I believe in a literal millennium - but there aint gonna be NO sacrifices made AT ALL in the millennium - I've never said that, ever.

ananias.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 9th 2008, 03:03 PM
Please, Paul - don't speak for me - putting words in my mouth. I believe in a literal millennium - but there aint gonna be NO sacrifices made AT ALL in the millennium - I've never said that, ever.Then what do you make of the sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48?

BroRog
Aug 9th 2008, 04:38 PM
We are not going to argue that Jesus' death on the cross was insufficient in some way, making it necessary for additional sacrifices. But here are some things to think about.

1. Remember, Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not Arron.

2. It's easy to over look, but the author of Hebrews says that if Jesus were on earth, he could not lawfully be a priest. Hebrews 8:4

3. Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok.

4. Not only did God make a covenant with David, He made a covenant with Levi. Malachi 2:8

5. Not only did God make a covenant with Levi, he promised that Levi would continue to give offerings to God. Jeremiah 33:14-22

6. The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10

7. The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6

ananias
Aug 9th 2008, 05:42 PM
Then what do you make of the sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48?

:rolleyes:

There can be no more sacrifice and offering for sin and uncleanness - I don't know about other offerings - we offer 10% of our income today - but never will there be sacirifces and offerings again for sin (we all know what Hebrews says, so I'm not going to quote the scriptures)

ananias. :)

wpm
Aug 9th 2008, 08:14 PM
We are not going to argue that Jesus' death on the cross was insufficient in some way, making it necessary for additional sacrifices. But here are some things to think about.

1. Remember, Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not Arron.

2. It's easy to over look, but the author of Hebrews says that if Jesus were on earth, he could not lawfully be a priest. Hebrews 8:4

3. Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok.

4. Not only did God make a covenant with David, He made a covenant with Levi. Malachi 2:8

5. Not only did God make a covenant with Levi, he promised that Levi would continue to give offerings to God. Jeremiah 33:14-22

6. The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10

7. The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6

Whatever you claim, to suggest that the temple sacrifices will be resurrected undermines the finished work of the cross.

Hebrews 8:6-7 explains, “now hath He [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry (than the priests that made imperfect sacrifices), by how much alsoHe is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

For you to desire the return of the old removed imperfect, shadow and type (which has been eternally removed "in Christ") does great injury to the cross-work. We must remind our brethren, the old covenant with its unsatisfactory imperfect animal sacrifices have now been replaced by the new covenant with its one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 8:8 confirms, "For finding fault (or imperfection) with them" or finding that they were not satisfactory, He made “a new covenant.”

Christ has met / satisfied all God's demands. By His self sacrifice he became the perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 7:19 declares, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did."

These Scriptures expose the Premillennial desire for the restoration of the old covenant system to be ill-founded.

Israel has only ever had one high priest at a time. How then can you propose the reintroduction the old covenant arrangement with other competing priests while Christ will be there in His eternal office of high priest of the elect?

You are also wrong to disannul Christ's priesthood when He comes again.

Remember, we now have an everlasting high priest who doesn't need replaced. He has superseded the imperfect abolished old covenant priesthood with its typical sacrifices. The thought of another one (or other ones) operating in a future millennium is totally unacceptable. They would obviously rival Christ's eternal priesthood. You are suggesting we go back to the shadow, type and figure, however, you are yet to address any of the New Testament passages I have presented that forbid your viewpoint.

Hebrews 7:21-24 says, speaking of Christ, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”

The word interpreted “unchangeable” here is very significant. It comes from the Greek word aparabatos, which simply means non-transferable. It is a legal word. For example, it relates to a judge laying down a decision that is unalterable and non-transferable. It also describes something which belongs to one person and cannot be transferred to anyone else. This tells us, no one else can hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Christ continues alone in this role, having an unchangeable non-transferable priestly office. Unlike the old covenant priesthood, Christ has no successors in this office. This priesthood cannot pass from one to another, it is not transmissible. No other can appropriate this title or share in the function of the position, Christ alone holds that sacred high priestly office. Christ is the only real and perfect High Priest. He is the ultimate and final high priest of the redeemed of God.

All the main commentators agree with this understanding. Matthew Henry says of this passage, “this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton – an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand.” Adam Clarke says of this order, “a priesthood that passeth not away from him; he lives forever, and he lives a priest forever.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agree, stating, Christ “hath His priesthood intransmissible: not passing from one to another.” Barnes says, “The idea is not strictly that it was ‘unchangeable’, but that ‘it did not pass over into other hands’. The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action … but … it [the order of Melchisedec] is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand.”

Through His sinless life, His atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection, Jesus replaced the imperfect temporal Levitical priesthood and established Himself a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. There is no other human that could have taken this illustrious position (with everything it entailed). The writer to the Hebrews demonstrates how there was no permanency to the old priesthood. The Levitical priests died and had to be replaced; but the priesthood of Jesus is for ever. His priesthood is one that will never pass away. Hebrews explains that the priesthood of Christ is something which can never be taken from Christ; it is something that no one else can ever possess, and it is eternal. In short, it is perpetually untransferable. Hebrews 5:6 says, “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”This reading clearly shows Christ holds this holy office “for ever.” In fact Hebrews 6:20, 7:3, 17 and 21 all say that Christ is “a priest for ever.”

Christ is consecrated a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, by an oath which stands fast for evermore. Hebrews 7:27-28 confirms this, telling us that Christ “needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.” This priesthood that belongs to Christ is far superior to the old one because it is established with an oath of God which indicates something sure, final, eternal and unchanging. We therefore need no other high priest — no other mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath.

The renting of the veil was a clear demonstration that the Levitical rites and ordinances were eternally abolished. The old covenant had been abrogated and the new covenant (with its new mediator) was brought into view. The veil splitting down the middle marked the final departure of the presence of God from the holy place. When Jesus died, the whole typical purpose of the Jewish sanctuary was rendered obsolete. It ceased to have any divine purpose. The type had met and was replaced by the anti-type, the shadow by the real and the temporal by the eternal. The unsatisfactory was eternally changed to the satisfactory, the imperfect to the perfect.

Paul

ananias
Aug 9th 2008, 08:38 PM
O.K - so here I find myself a pre-millennilialist who believes in a literal thousand year reign of Christ who finds himself 100% in agreement with Paul on this issue.

There is just no way that the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples is going to run parallel with another priesthood - or that the old priesthood and system will be reinstituted.

Ezekiel 40 to the end of the book corresponds with Revelation's NEW heavens, earth and NEW Jerusalem - complete with "the river of Life" which flows through it;

and the Gog-Magog rebellion in Ezekiel comes BEFORE the new temple and new city - AT THE CLOSE OF a prolonged period of peace and safety for Israel and the world after the judgment of the seven Gentile nations - just like in the Revelation - the Gog-Magog rebellion and judgement comes at the close of the millennium. The new heavens etc follows after that - same as in Ezekiel. We can't assume now that animal sacrifices are going to be carried out in the new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem - no matter how specific Ezekiel's descriptions of these sacrifices are we can only apply them spirituallly, if at all.

ananias.

PS: I don't know how to explain Ezekiel's references to animal sacrifices in the new city and new temple - all I know is that I cannot accept that these sacrifices will be lietrally performed.

markedward
Aug 9th 2008, 09:22 PM
Where does it say in Ezekiel (or anywhere else) these sacrifices are memorial blood sacrifices? This is the crucial question on this matter.It doesn't.

Ezekiel directly and specifically says that the sacrifices will be sin offerings, and that they are for the purpose of bringing atonement. The sacrifices seen in Ezekiel's rebuilt temple are 100% Torah sacrifices. Anyone who tries to apply these sacrifices as being presided over by Jesus completely contradicts the NT descriptions that His sacrifice was the one and only sacrifice, and that it overrulled the Torah sacrifices, making them obsolete.

Ezekiel wrote before the first temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. He was prophesied that the first temple would be destroyed, that the Babylonians would be God's hand of judgment upon the Jews, and that eventually the Jews would return to Israel and build a new temple. Contextually and chronologically, Ezekiel could only have been prophesying about the destruction of the first temple and the building of the second temple of Jerusalem.

People will try to apply Ezekiel's temple to a future temple, but that just doesn't work. The only way for this to work would be if Ezekiel prophesied the first temple's destruction, the Babylonian judgment upon the Jews, then skipped multiple thousands of years into the future, completely skipping the time period that immediately followed the Babylonian exile without any sort of warning that he was changing the context of his prophecies. The fact that Ezekiel prophesied the destruction of the first temple of Jerusalem and prophesied another temple to be built would mean that every single one of his contemporaries would have interpreted this rebuilt temple as being the second temple. Chronologically speaking, Ezekiel's new temple is built right after he had described the first temple being destroyed by the Babylonians... so chronologically speaking, this would be the second temple. And whaddya know? There was a second temple built following the judgment brought on by the Babylonians, and it just so happened to reinstitute the Torah sacrifices.

ananias
Aug 9th 2008, 11:51 PM
It doesn't.

Ezekiel directly and specifically says that the sacrifices will be sin offerings, and that they are for the purpose of bringing atonement. The sacrifices seen in Ezekiel's rebuilt temple are 100% Torah sacrifices. Anyone who tries to apply these sacrifices as being presided over by Jesus completely contradicts the NT descriptions that His sacrifice was the one and only sacrifice, and that it overrulled the Torah sacrifices, making them obsolete.

Ezekiel wrote before the first temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. He was prophesied that the first temple would be destroyed, that the Babylonians would be God's hand of judgment upon the Jews, and that eventually the Jews would return to Israel and build a new temple. Contextually and chronologically, Ezekiel could only have been prophesying about the destruction of the first temple and the building of the second temple of Jerusalem.

People will try to apply Ezekiel's temple to a future temple, but that just doesn't work. The only way for this to work would be if Ezekiel prophesied the first temple's destruction, the Babylonian judgment upon the Jews, then skipped multiple thousands of years into the future, completely skipping the time period that immediately followed the Babylonian exile without any sort of warning that he was changing the context of his prophecies. The fact that Ezekiel prophesied the destruction of the first temple of Jerusalem and prophesied another temple to be built would mean that every single one of his contemporaries would have interpreted this rebuilt temple as being the second temple. Chronologically speaking, Ezekiel's new temple is built right after he had described the first temple being destroyed by the Babylonians... so chronologically speaking, this would be the second temple. And whaddya know? There was a second temple built following the judgment brought on by the Babylonians, and it just so happened to reinstitute the Torah sacrifices.

That makes total sense - but Isaiah was speaking about the king of Babylon when he said, "How you are fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!" (Isa.14: 12).

Yet the prophecy has different layers - it speaks of this time, and then of that time - so it speaks of the antichrist/man of sin/ beast from the bottomless pit at the end of the age.

Ezekiel 36: 16-38 likewise definitely seems to have different layers - speaking of this time, and then of that time - the Jews did not receive the Spirit of God and a new heart etc (New Covenant promises) when they returned from Babylonian captivity; and they had not been "scattered among the nations" and gathered from many lands. Neither did they have the prolonged period of total peace, prosperity and safety from enemy attack described from Eze.36-37. Neither did "Gog, of Magog" bring their (prolonged) period of prosperity, peace, sand safety from enemy attack to an end at the close of the period. And neither did the river of Life flow out from the second temple:

"And all trees for food shall go up by the torrent, on its bank on this side, and on that side. Its leaf shall not fade, nor its fruit fail. It will bear by its months, because its waters come out from the sanctuary. And its fruit shall be for food, and its leaf for healing." (Eze.47: 12).

"In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev.22: 2).

We know that the river of Life refers to the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ - so how could Ezekiel have been referring ONLY to the second temple and ONLY to the restoration from Babylonian captivity?

ananias.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2008, 12:20 AM
For you to desire the return of the old removed imperfect, shadow and type (which has been eternally removed "in Christ") does great injury to the cross-work.

Who said it was my desire?


These Scriptures expose the Premillennial desire for the restoration of the old covenant system to be ill-founded.

Who said anything about desire?


Israel has only ever had one high priest at a time. How then can you propose the reintroduction the old covenant arrangement with other competing priests while Christ will be there in His eternal office of high priest of the elect?

Who said it was my idea? Who said Zadok would compete with Jesus? And who said he would be there when the Levites were there? You seem to make a lot of assumptions.


You are also wrong to disannul Christ's priesthood when He comes again.

Who said anything about an annulment? Did you not read that no man on earth can be a priest except a son of Levi?


Remember, we now have an everlasting high priest who doesn't need replaced.

Who said he was being replaced?


You are suggesting we go back to the shadow, type and figure, however, you are yet to address any of the New Testament passages I have presented that forbid your viewpoint.


Where did I suggest we go back to the shadow? I was never under the shadow and neither were you. I presented you with the same passage you cited, only I didn't ignore the verse that specifies the idea that had Jesus been on earth, he could not be a priest. The author of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was of a different order and took his sacrifice to heaven.


The word interpreted “unchangeable” here is very significant. It comes from the Greek word aparabatos, which simply means non-transferable. It is a legal word. For example, it relates to a judge laying down a decision that is unalterable and non-transferable. It also describes something which belongs to one person and cannot be transferred to anyone else. This tells us, no one else can hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Christ continues alone in this role, having an unchangeable non-transferable priestly office. Unlike the old covenant priesthood, Christ has no successors in this office. This priesthood cannot pass from one to another, it is not transmissible. No other can appropriate this title or share in the function of the position, Christ alone holds that sacred high priestly office. Christ is the only real and perfect High Priest. He is the ultimate and final high priest of the redeemed of God.

The same can be said of the Levitial Priesthood. It is also unalterable and nontransferable. In fact, the scriptures teach this very thing. Why should I assume the scriptures are contradictory?


Through His sinless life, His atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection, Jesus replaced the imperfect temporal Levitical priesthood and established Himself a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood. He says that Christ's priesthood was more effective because it dealt with sin on a permanent basis.


His priesthood is one that will never pass away. Hebrews explains that the priesthood of Christ is something which can never be taken from Christ; it is something that no one else can ever possess, and it is eternal.

Who said anything about replacing the priesthood of Christ?


Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others.


Does the Bible not teach that we are priests, and a kingdom of priests? Does this duty as a kingdom of priests imply that we share Christ's priestly duties? And if so, does this mean that Jesus has given up his role as high priest?


The renting of the veil was a clear demonstration that the Levitical rites and ordinances were eternally abolished. The old covenant had been abrogated and the new covenant (with its new mediator) was brought into view. The veil splitting down the middle marked the final departure of the presence of God from the holy place. When Jesus died, the whole typical purpose of the Jewish sanctuary was rendered obsolete.

**Who said anything about the Old Temple? Ezekiel's temple is a new temple, one that has never been built. You sure make a ton of assumptions Paul.

wpm
Aug 10th 2008, 01:03 AM
Who said it was my desire?



Who said anything about desire?



Who said it was my idea? Who said Zadok would compete with Jesus? And who said he would be there when the Levites were there? You seem to make a lot of assumptions.


Who said anything about an annulment? Did you not read that no man on earth can be a priest except a son of Levi?



Who said he was being replaced?



Where did I suggest we go back to the shadow? I was never under the shadow and neither were you. I presented you with the same passage you cited, only I didn't ignore the verse that specifies the idea that had Jesus been on earth, he could not be a priest. The author of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was of a different order and took his sacrifice to heaven.



The same can be said of the Levitial Priesthood. It is also unalterable and nontransferable. In fact, the scriptures teach this very thing. Why should I assume the scriptures are contradictory?



The author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood. He says that Christ's priesthood was more effective because it dealt with sin on a permanent basis.



Who said anything about replacing the priesthood of Christ?



Does the Bible not teach that we are priests, and a kingdom of priests? Does this duty as a kingdom of priests imply that we share Christ's priestly duties? And if so, does this mean that Jesus has given up his role as high priest?



**Who said anything about the Old Temple? Ezekiel's temple is a new temple, one that has never been built. You sure make a ton of assumptions Paul.

You haven't actually addressed anything, just asked questions. Notwithstanding, considering the Premil aspiration for more sin offerings, what possible use could there be for future sin offerings when Christ made the final sacrifice for sin?

Paul

markedward
Aug 10th 2008, 01:09 AM
The author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood. He says that Christ's priesthood was more effective because it dealt with sin on a permanent basis."For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ... By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

The author of Hebrews does say that the "old covenant," which you very well know consisted of the Levitical priesthood, would be disappear "soon."

The bulk of Hebrews contrasts the Old with the New - the earthly priesthood, the earthly tabernacle, and the earthly sacrifices contrasted to the true priesthood (Jesus in heaven, 8:1), the true tabernacle (the sanctuary in heaven, 8:1-2, 5), and the true sacrifice (Jesus, once for all, 10:10).

The author of Hebrews make it entirely evident that the "Old Covenant" consisted of the earthly things, including the Levitical priesthood.

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

And the author directly says that the Old Covenant would "soon disappear," being replaced by the New Covenant.

Think logically here... He says the Old Covenant was already made obsolete by the New Covenant, meaning he's writing in the time period after Jesus' death and resurrection - but he also says that the Old Covenant had not yet disappeared, meaning he's writing in the time period before the Old Covenant had been done away with. But specifically, he says it's "disappearance" would happen "soon."

Since the author makes it abundantly clear that the Old Covenant consisted of the earthly priesthood and the earthly sacrifices and the earthly temple, he is thus saying that when the Old Covenant disappears, the earthly priesthood and sacrifices and temple would disappear. Since he says that it would happen "soon," and he tells us exactly what was going to disappear, the best conclusion we can come to is that the Old Covenant disappeared with the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem - the earthly temple was done away with, the earthly sacrifices were done away with, and the earthly priesthood was done away with.


The author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood.

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

"He sets aside the first to establish the second."

The author makes it absolutely clear. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant: the old Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ's priesthood.

The Old Covenant and old (Levitical) priesthood and old temple and old sacrifices were made obsolete, set aside, and replaced.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2008, 02:28 AM
You haven't actually addressed anything, just asked questions. Notwithstanding, considering the Premil aspiration for more sin offerings, what possible use could there be for future sin offerings when Christ made the final sacrifice for sin?

Paul

First, by asking questions I made the point I wanted to make, which was: you assume much about other people's motives, and their understanding of things. Second, before we answer your question about a future use of the sin offerings, we need to discuss the past use of them.

We could ask a similar question of God. If the offerings were ineffective for the expiation of sin, then why do them? If you can answer this, then maybe you can understand what future use they will have.

wpm
Aug 10th 2008, 02:37 AM
First, by asking questions I made the point I wanted to make, which was: you assume much about other people's motives, and their understanding of things. Second, before we answer your question about a future use of the sin offerings, we need to discuss the past use of them.

We could ask a similar question of God. If the offerings were ineffective for the expiation of sin, then why do them? If you can answer this, then maybe you can understand what future use they will have.

They were merely an imperfect temporal covering of sin until the reality Christ arrived.

Paul

threebigrocks
Aug 10th 2008, 02:47 AM
Please take time to do so now.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=135205

Let's make certain that we remain in productive discussion.

the rookie
Aug 10th 2008, 03:37 AM
Who said it was my desire?



Who said anything about desire?



Who said it was my idea? Who said Zadok would compete with Jesus? And who said he would be there when the Levites were there? You seem to make a lot of assumptions.


Who said anything about an annulment? Did you not read that no man on earth can be a priest except a son of Levi?



Who said he was being replaced?



Where did I suggest we go back to the shadow? I was never under the shadow and neither were you. I presented you with the same passage you cited, only I didn't ignore the verse that specifies the idea that had Jesus been on earth, he could not be a priest. The author of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was of a different order and took his sacrifice to heaven.



The same can be said of the Levitial Priesthood. It is also unalterable and nontransferable. In fact, the scriptures teach this very thing. Why should I assume the scriptures are contradictory?



The author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood. He says that Christ's priesthood was more effective because it dealt with sin on a permanent basis.



Who said anything about replacing the priesthood of Christ?



Does the Bible not teach that we are priests, and a kingdom of priests? Does this duty as a kingdom of priests imply that we share Christ's priestly duties? And if so, does this mean that Jesus has given up his role as high priest?



**Who said anything about the Old Temple? Ezekiel's temple is a new temple, one that has never been built.

In the spirit of the re-emphasis on civility, I'm wondering if these questions will be answered or addressed - I found them to be helpful questions?

ananias
Aug 10th 2008, 02:15 PM
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. Paul

Please forgive me for being so abrupt in my first post about this, Paul. I agree with you 100% - and all the pre-millers I know agree with you on this also. This thread was total news to me that there may be some pre-millers who believe that sacrifices will be reinstitued. I feel as strongly about that as you do, which is why I couldn't understand how all pre-millers were lumped into the same box in your opening statement.

Thank you for the post!

ananias.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2008, 05:38 PM
Please forgive me for being so abrupt in my first post about this, Paul. I agree with you 100% - and all the pre-millers I know agree with you on this also. This thread was total news to me that there may be some pre-millers who believe that sacrifices will be reinstitued. I feel as strongly about that as you do, which is why I couldn't understand how all pre-millers were lumped into the same box in your opening statement.

Thank you for the post!

ananias.

Ananias,

I personally want to apologize to you if my questions have offended you. I realize the inflammatory and offensive nature of the idea that Christ's work on the cross was not finished. I can assure you that I too, believe Christ's work on the cross was finished.

At the same time, I am willing to discuss the possibility that Israel will take up the sin offerings during that time since I am convinced that Ezekiel's temple will be built as the scriptures say.

I am in the process of trying to reconcile all the scriptures on the subject and appreciate these discussions as they help me sort out the details. The passages from Hebrews, of course, are helpful. But I don't want to end there. I don't think the passage from Hebrews is the "be all and end all" of this discussion. And I get the impression, when large passages of Hebrews are quoted in red, that the post is intended to say, "this is it; end of story; let's move on."

Granted, I should say this to Paul. But I wanted to apologize to you personally for leaving the impression that the work of Christ on the cross was incomplete, inefficient, or inadequate for any reason. That is not my belief.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2008, 06:10 PM
They were merely an imperfect temporal covering of sin until the reality Christ arrived.

Paul

The author of Hebrews says they were imperfect. I get that. But what scripture says they were a covering?

As I recall, by law, there were various sin offerings. If a man wanted to give a sin offering for his personal sins, the law made provision for that. And there were corporate sin offerings the High Priest made for the entire nation as a whole. It's this second type the author of Hebrews has in mind as he describes the High Priest and his duties.

The specific sin offering in view is the day of atonement in which the High Priest offered, first for his own sins, and then for the entire nation. We can read about the procedure in Leviticus 16, which describes the use of three animals.

1. A bull. The blood of the bull is for a sin offering for Aaron and his household.

2. The goat for the Lord. The blood of this goat is used to make atonement for the holy place and the tent of meeting.

3. The goat for Azazel. This goat is not killed. Aaron places his hands on this goat to confess the sins of Israel on it. And then the goat is led out into the wilderness.

Rather than a covering, it would appear that the goat for Azazel pictures the removal of sins from the camp, never to be seen again. And while this may have been an imperfect symbol of the idea, Jesus intercession before God in heaven is the perfect reality of that situation.

ananias
Aug 10th 2008, 07:40 PM
Ananias,

I personally want to apologize to you if my questions have offended you. I realize the inflammatory and offensive nature of the idea that Christ's work on the cross was not finished. I can assure you that I too, believe Christ's work on the cross was finished.

At the same time, I am willing to discuss the possibility that Israel will take up the sin offerings during that time since I am convinced that Ezekiel's temple will be built as the scriptures say.

I am in the process of trying to reconcile all the scriptures on the subject and appreciate these discussions as they help me sort out the details. The passages from Hebrews, of course, are helpful. But I don't want to end there. I don't think the passage from Hebrews is the "be all and end all" of this discussion. And I get the impression, when large passages of Hebrews are quoted in red, that the post is intended to say, "this is it; end of story; let's move on."

Granted, I should say this to Paul. But I wanted to apologize to you personally for leaving the impression that the work of Christ on the cross was incomplete, inefficient, or inadequate for any reason. That is not my belief.

Your questions don't offend me - they're just discussion.

As a pre-miller myself, I don't, and never have accepted (or even considered) the reintroduction of animal sacrifices or the construction of another temple (Ezekiel's temple, in the case of this discussion). Jesus Himself is the temple of God, and to my way of thinking, another so-called "temple" will be nothing more and nothing less than an image imitating the real thing - which is commonly known as antichrist ).

But I'm not mad at anybody - I just didn't like the blanket statement that pre-millers (meaning every single one of us) believe in the reinstatement of sacrifices and the construction of another temple. But the way I reacted to that statement was unacceptable to our Lord (and to me, but the flesh gets in my way sometimes). And so I apologize to Paul.

ananias.

ross3421
Aug 10th 2008, 08:23 PM
We are not going to argue that Jesus' death on the cross was insufficient in some way, making it necessary for additional sacrifices. But here are some things to think about.

1. Remember, Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not Arron.

2. It's easy to over look, but the author of Hebrews says that if Jesus were on earth, he could not lawfully be a priest. Hebrews 8:4

3. Ezekiel's temple is on earth. Therefore, any offerings made to God for any reason, must be done by a Levite, specifically a Zadok.

4. Not only did God make a covenant with David, He made a covenant with Levi. Malachi 2:8

5. Not only did God make a covenant with Levi, he promised that Levi would continue to give offerings to God. Jeremiah 33:14-22

6. The point of building the temple is to cause Israel (not everyone) to be ashamed of all that they have done. Ezekiel 43:10

7. The glory of God enters the temple through the east gate, and the man Jesus rules from that throne on earth. Ezekiel 43:6

Amen. Christ shedding of his blood did not anull pervious promises to Israel. There will be a temple and continued sacrifices after Christ returns however not during a millenial kingdom but thoughout all eternity.

These will be done for a memorial unto all of Israel and will point that they were and always be insufficient. Note that God says he will MULTIPLY Israel in his midst for generation unto generation and these continued sacrifices will potentially lead their offspring to salvation.

Mark

ross3421
Aug 10th 2008, 08:40 PM
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ... By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

The author of Hebrews does say that the "old covenant," which you very well know consisted of the Levitical priesthood, would be disappear "soon."

The bulk of Hebrews contrasts the Old with the New - the earthly priesthood, the earthly tabernacle, and the earthly sacrifices contrasted to the true priesthood (Jesus in heaven, 8:1), the true tabernacle (the sanctuary in heaven, 8:1-2, 5), and the true sacrifice (Jesus, once for all, 10:10).

The author of Hebrews make it entirely evident that the "Old Covenant" consisted of the earthly things, including the Levitical priesthood.

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

And the author directly says that the Old Covenant would "soon disappear," being replaced by the New Covenant.

Think logically here... He says the Old Covenant was already made obsolete by the New Covenant, meaning he's writing in the time period after Jesus' death and resurrection - but he also says that the Old Covenant had not yet disappeared, meaning he's writing in the time period before the Old Covenant had been done away with. But specifically, he says it's "disappearance" would happen "soon."

Since the author makes it abundantly clear that the Old Covenant consisted of the earthly priesthood and the earthly sacrifices and the earthly temple, he is thus saying that when the Old Covenant disappears, the earthly priesthood and sacrifices and temple would disappear. Since he says that it would happen "soon," and he tells us exactly what was going to disappear, the best conclusion we can come to is that the Old Covenant disappeared with the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem - the earthly temple was done away with, the earthly sacrifices were done away with, and the earthly priesthood was done away with.



"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

"He sets aside the first to establish the second."

The author makes it absolutely clear. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant: the old Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ's priesthood.

The Old Covenant and old (Levitical) priesthood and old temple and old sacrifices were made obsolete, set aside, and replaced.

Is it beyond the possiblity that there will be a need for future sacrifices for another set of nations (remnant Israel) in the New Heavens and New Earth? I mean we think and have been taught that everything is pure in the next life (mainly due to Rev 21:4). However is the truth that this deals within the city while life may exsist outside the walls much like today with offspring needed to choose to worship God or not......

Mark

moonglow
Aug 10th 2008, 10:15 PM
Please forgive me for being so abrupt in my first post about this, Paul. I agree with you 100% - and all the pre-millers I know agree with you on this also. This thread was total news to me that there may be some pre-millers who believe that sacrifices will be reinstitued. I feel as strongly about that as you do, which is why I couldn't understand how all pre-millers were lumped into the same box in your opening statement.

Thank you for the post!

ananias.

When I was a pre-trib rapture believer this is what we were taught too...that a another temple would be built and sacrifices started up again for the Jews by the antichrist. That is all I ever heard! I am actually surprised not all pre-tribbers believe this...I never ran into any that didn't believe this. There are threads on here talking about the rebuilding of this third temple too. So I can see why the OP...who experienced this also..said this in his opening post. I guess we all learn something new everyday! That was nice post you did by the way. :)

God bless

moonglow
Aug 10th 2008, 10:37 PM
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ... By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

The author of Hebrews does say that the "old covenant," which you very well know consisted of the Levitical priesthood, would be disappear "soon."

The bulk of Hebrews contrasts the Old with the New - the earthly priesthood, the earthly tabernacle, and the earthly sacrifices contrasted to the true priesthood (Jesus in heaven, 8:1), the true tabernacle (the sanctuary in heaven, 8:1-2, 5), and the true sacrifice (Jesus, once for all, 10:10).

The author of Hebrews make it entirely evident that the "Old Covenant" consisted of the earthly things, including the Levitical priesthood.

"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

And the author directly says that the Old Covenant would "soon disappear," being replaced by the New Covenant.

Think logically here... He says the Old Covenant was already made obsolete by the New Covenant, meaning he's writing in the time period after Jesus' death and resurrection - but he also says that the Old Covenant had not yet disappeared, meaning he's writing in the time period before the Old Covenant had been done away with. But specifically, he says it's "disappearance" would happen "soon."

Since the author makes it abundantly clear that the Old Covenant consisted of the earthly priesthood and the earthly sacrifices and the earthly temple, he is thus saying that when the Old Covenant disappears, the earthly priesthood and sacrifices and temple would disappear. Since he says that it would happen "soon," and he tells us exactly what was going to disappear, the best conclusion we can come to is that the Old Covenant disappeared with the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem - the earthly temple was done away with, the earthly sacrifices were done away with, and the earthly priesthood was done away with.



"By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

"He sets aside the first to establish the second."

The author makes it absolutely clear. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant: the old Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ's priesthood.

The Old Covenant and old (Levitical) priesthood and old temple and old sacrifices were made obsolete, set aside, and replaced.

That was an excellent post..very good...

I know everyone has mentioned Hebrews but for the sake of those reading that might not know which passages is being referred too I would like to post it now. (and maybe it was posted but I missed it)

Hebrews 7

Greatness of the New Priest

20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:


“ The LORD has sworn
And will not relent,

‘ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek’”),


22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

God bless

wpm
Aug 10th 2008, 10:38 PM
These will be done for a memorial unto all of Israel and will point that they were and always be insufficient. Note that God says he will MULTIPLY Israel in his midst for generation unto generation and these continued sacrifices will potentially lead their offspring to salvation.

(1) Where does it say this? It is one thing saying they are "memorial," but what are they "memorial" of and where does it teach this in the Bible?

(2) Why do a futile "insufficient" act for all eternity to prove it is "insufficient"? That sounds crazy to me. It does not sound like a God-thing. He does everything for a purpose. Surely eternity is all about the former imperfect things being removed and remembered no more. You would have us witnessing imperfection for ever and ever. I don't see this or accept it. Again, where is your Scripture for this?

(3) How can these abolished sacrifices 'potentially lead Israel's offspring to salvation'? I though Jesus is man's only Saviour? He is Israel's only hope (Acts 28:20). Why does He need any additional help in eternity? Anyway, salvation is not potential, it is sure. Where do you get this teaching?

Paul

ross3421
Aug 11th 2008, 12:38 AM
(1) Where does it say this? It is one thing saying they are "memorial," but what are they "memorial" of and where does it teach this in the Bible?

Ex 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

And we see those still up holding this commandment into eternity.

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.


He does everything for a purpose. Surely eternity is all about the former imperfect things being removed and remembered no more. You would have us witnessing imperfection for ever and ever. I don't see this or accept it. Again, where is your Scripture for this?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

An imperfective eternity is what you and I have been sold. There is imperfection of the inhabinants within the city walls. Rev 22:4 is in relation to the church and that there will be no more death ect... to them.

Re 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Outside the city things would appear much different. Why is there a need for healing of the nations in eternity if everything is perfect? What if you do not do his commandments? Why the need for commandments if everything is perfect? Why the need of the right to come unto the tree of life?

Re 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

God will rule in eternity and will send a plague upon those outside the city which do not worship him and keep this feast.

Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Anyway, salvation is not potential, it is sure.

To those which have not received Christ, salvation is potential. This what I meant......So to all mankind the potential of being saved exsists.


Where do you get this teaching?[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

I used to see all of the kingdom as perfect however there appears to be a contrast between those living inside verses those living outside the city. Outside unlike inside I see nations multiplying and choosing to worship or not to worship. God will rule them with a rod of iron and he will display his power and authority over them for ever. Unlike today's kings, God himself will rule over the affairs of mankind in eternity. Furthermore, he will experience seeing those choose to worship him forever and ever.......

Those inside, the church, will rule over all things and have the reward to all of the riches of the kingdom inside and out.

Re 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Mark

wpm
Aug 11th 2008, 01:39 AM
Ex 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

And we see those still up holding this commandment into eternity.

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

But there is not even the slightest allusion or indication of memorial here. Where is your evidence? This is not an unreasonable request. The Premillennial system re-introduces the full abolished old covenant sacrifices: meat offerings (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20), sin offerings (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20), trespass offerings (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20), burnt offerings (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15), peace offerings (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12), drink offerings (Ezekiel 45:17).

The old covenant was temporal and imperfect and could never satisfy God’s eternal plan for man. It has now been replaced by the new covenant with its focus upon the one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

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

Premils disagree, they say there is more offering for sin, presenting the old covenant passages of Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20 as supposed evidence.

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



An imperfective eternity is what you and I have been sold. There is imperfection of the inhabinants within the city walls. Rev 22:4 is in relation to the church and that there will be no more death ect... to them.

Re 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Outside the city things would appear much different. Why is there a need for healing of the nations in eternity if everything is perfect? What if you do not do his commandments? Why the need for commandments if everything is perfect? Why the need of the right to come unto the tree of life?

Re 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

God will rule in eternity and will send a plague upon those outside the city which do not worship him and keep this feast.

Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


To those which have not received Christ, salvation is potential. This what I meant......So to all mankind the potential of being saved exsists.

I used to see all of the kingdom as perfect however there appears to be a contrast between those living inside verses those living outside the city. Outside unlike inside I see nations multiplying and choosing to worship or not to worship. God will rule them with a rod of iron and he will display his power and authority over them for ever. Unlike today's kings, God himself will rule over the affairs of mankind in eternity. Furthermore, he will experience seeing those choose to worship him forever and ever.......

Those inside, the church, will rule over all things and have the reward to all of the riches of the kingdom inside and out.

Re 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:


The new earth will be incorrupt, it will be glorified. That is why mortals cannot inhabit it. 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then (or) tote (or at that time)shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This couldn't be clearer. The kingdom that is going to be inherited at Christ's return is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all corruption, thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed. It is plain to see, for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be suitably fitted for it. His whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it.

Every vestige of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible man is not only changed, but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs. Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

Romans 8:19-23 confirms, “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

This passage clearly locates the anticipated glorification feat to the day of redemption when Christ rescues His elect from this sin-cursed world. It is this concluding event that finally witnesses the entire elect of God of all time secure the last aspect of the redemptive process – the “redemption” of their bodies. It is therefore this last day that sees the glorious “manifestation of the sons of God.” This event also corresponds with the final judgment of the wicked and wickedness with their casting into the Lake of Fire and eternal punishment. It is at this final event of history that creation is finally and eternally freed from the curse of corruption in all its putrid forms and therefore the awful groaning and travailing that it now endures.

Paul

markedward
Aug 11th 2008, 02:47 AM
Is it beyond the possiblity that there will be a need for future sacrifices for another set of nations (remnant Israel) in the New Heavens and New Earth? I mean we think and have been taught that everything is pure in the next life (mainly due to Rev 21:4). However is the truth that this deals within the city while life may exist outside the walls much like today with offspring needed to choose to worship God or not......All you're doing here is speculating...

In all of Scripture, the only prophecies that speak of reinstated sacrifices are ones that can easily be shown to point to the second temple time period.

BroRog
Aug 11th 2008, 05:58 AM
The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

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


In the same verse it also says, "“This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days . . ." Those days haven't come yet.



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


Ah, but if the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices, then those who make them have no expectation of their efficacy, and since they don't expect the sacrifices to expiate sin, they do not violate the warning of Hebrews 10:26. Or else those who take communion are also in violation of that verse, since they too, memorialize the death of Jesus on the cross.


The new earth will be incorrupt, it will be glorified. That is why mortals cannot inhabit it.


But then, where does Ezekiel say that the earthly temple will be on the New Earth? If this Temple is on the old earth during this age, then why would the Amil doctrine have a problem with it?


This couldn't be clearer. The kingdom that is going to be inherited at Christ's return is an incorrupt one.


Perhaps, but remember all this takes place after God has put all of Jesus' enemies under his feet as a footstool. Even those who affirm the premil doctrine, place that time after the defeat of Satan, death and Hades.

The error of the premil doctrine may not be in the fact that Jesus rules for a thousand years on earth, but that the righteous dead are resurrected during that time. After all, if all the righteous dead are resurrected at the inauguration of the Millennial period, it could be argued that death was defeated then, rather than later. Why assume that the "first resurrection" is the resurrection of all the righteous dead, especially when the text specifies a narrow subset of the righteous dead -- the martyrs of the Great Tribulation?

Why can't the rapture not only be post-trib but post-mill?

wpm
Aug 11th 2008, 06:09 AM
Ah, but if the sacrifices are "memorial" sacrifices, then those who make them have no expectation of their efficacy, and since they don't expect the sacrifices to expiate sin, they do not violate the warning of Hebrews 10:26. Or else those who take communion are also in violation of that verse, since they too, memorialize the death of Jesus on the cross.

But what I am trying to establish: where is the basis for anticipating "memorial sacrifices"? Where does it teach this in Ezek 40-47 or anywhere else? No holder of this has ever furnished this to me.


Why can't the rapture not only be post-trib but post-mill?

Hmmm. ;)

Paul

third hero
Aug 11th 2008, 06:11 AM
ok, that does it!
Paul, not all premils believe that Christ will institute animal sacrifices when He rules the world at His return. But yet, you continue to spout out that little bit of untruth in every thread you either start or involve yourself with. If you are going to make generalities, could you make ones that are actually true?

I have, and there are others like me that believe that Ezekiel 40-44 was conditional prophecies that involved Zerrubabel, the prince that led the people from Babylon to Jerusalem. And guess what? We are still premils. So can you erase that little bit of misinformation from your diatribes? Thank you.

Second of all, why would any premil believe that animal sacrifices, which did nothing for the Israelites who were under the Law, be reinstitutionalised by the man who negated them in the first place? Jesus bacame sin so that we sould be relieved of ours. Everyone knows that! And on top of that, nothing can take away a person's sin except for the blood og Lord Jesus. You know that, and even us premils know that. (ok, I have not read any further than the OP, so please premils, do not make a fool out of me... please?!) Anyway, we know that only Jesus can forgive men of their sins, and no animal can do that. So why would Lord Jesus reinstitutionalize a dead ritual?

Just because we believe that Christ is going to come to this earth and have His very own Kingdom established by His Father does not mean that we are Judaizers or adhere to any other false doctrines. We take our beliefs from the Bible, and we actually say that places in the Bible like Revelation 19-20 can be taken at face value, instead of figurating it away like you and many other Amils tend to do. So, before you make untrue comments like "Premils believe that Christ is going to reinstitute animal sacrifices", check your sources.

Thanks.
Doug
the Third Hero

third hero
Aug 11th 2008, 06:48 AM
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

From the many posts of your that I have read, it would seem to me that you were a Dispensationalist, and not a Historical or Classical premil. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, since many of the Historical Premil beliefs that we believe, you have not referenced a single one when talking about the end times.

third hero
Aug 11th 2008, 06:53 AM
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

Matthew 24:15-21
Zechariah 14:1-5
2 Thes 2:3-4
Matthew 24:22-34
Revelation 12
Revelation 13-15
Revelation 20:1-4
Revelation 14:11-14
Revelation 16:14-17 And especially verse 15
Daniel 7, all of it
Matthew 20, all of it
Just to start you off. I am sure you will find amny other scriptures that lead you to the truth. Enjoy, and happy reading!

third hero
Aug 11th 2008, 06:55 AM
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.

Here is something that Eric and I actually agree on!

third hero
Aug 11th 2008, 07:20 AM
Ok. I guess scripture has to be infused into this debate as well.

Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Guess what? Ezekiel has switched gears, and apparently, so had God. God wanted to show him something else, not concerning the end times, but concerning the very near future of Israel. How do I know? Well, let's take a look.

Verse 4
And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew [them] unto thee [art] thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.

Whom is this prophecy concern? Israel. Not Spiritual Israel, but Ethnic Israel. Remember, when Ezekiel had received these prophecies, Israel was still in Babylon, captives of the Babylonian/Mede/Persian empire. So, it is possible that this prophecy is about the second temple and how God wanted it rebuilt.

Now, is this a conditional prophecy, like Jonas' prophecy concerning Ninevah, or is it unconditional? Ezekiel 43 answers that.

We begin with verse 8.
In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger. (vs 9)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.

Now, we see God doing two things. 1. He is explaining to Ezekiel what He had just done to Israel. 2. He is making a condition for Israel. He is telling them to forsake the wickedness of the past, and come and dwell with Him. This is definitely conditional. But there is more.

Verse 10
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. (vs 11)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.

Now, is it any more obvious that chapters 40-44 have nothing to do with the end times? Even the priests of Zadok are mentioned here, and they were referenced in not only Isaiah, but Jeremiah as well, right along with Zerubabbel. This whole portion of scripture is concerning Israel and their soon-to-be exodus back to their homeland, after the first dispersion. Moreover, since the word "if" is used, this would become a conditional scripture, dealing with their near future whic hwould be our very ancient past. There is no Millennial reference here.

wpm
Aug 11th 2008, 02:55 PM
From the many posts of your that I have read, it would seem to me that you were a Dispensationalist, and not a Historical or Classical premil. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, since many of the Historical Premil beliefs that we believe, you have not referenced a single one when talking about the end times.

Historic Premil.

Paul

David Taylor
Aug 11th 2008, 03:13 PM
ok, that does it!
Paul, not all premils believe that Christ will institute animal sacrifices when He rules the world at His return. But yet, you continue to spout out that little bit of untruth in every thread you either start or involve yourself with. If you are going to make generalities, could you make ones that are actually true?




OK Doug,
When someone makes a generalization that Premillennialism teaches that Ezekiel 40-48 is a future literal expectation; and the animal sacrifices describe within those chapters are literally expect; this isn't inaccurate or untruth.

Most believers of the Premillennialism view believe and expect this to occur.
(There are always minority exceptions to any view).

Besides, the topic of this OPs thread is 'millennial sacrifices' and only the Premill viewpoint expects this. Amill and Postmill don't; so wpm was within the subject of the OP to begin with.

Similarly, if you made a blanket generalization that Amillennialism believes that Satan was bound in the 1st century; that would be true of most Amillennialists views as well (although there are assuredly some who disagree).

So don't try to run wpm through the ringer for making a general statement that is in accordance with the majority understanding of that view.

It's fine for you to step up and say you don't believe that in within your Premill understanding; but to say he is making untrue generalities is simply not correct or warranted.

Amillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believes Satan was bound in the 1st century.

Premillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believe in a future literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48, including its animal sacrifices.

There are always minority exceptions to every general viewpoint.

BroRog
Aug 11th 2008, 03:14 PM
Ok. I guess scripture has to be infused into this debate as well.

Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Guess what? Ezekiel has switched gears, and apparently, so had God. God wanted to show him something else, not concerning the end times, but concerning the very near future of Israel. How do I know? Well, let's take a look.

Verse 4
And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew [them] unto thee [art] thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.

Whom is this prophecy concern? Israel. Not Spiritual Israel, but Ethnic Israel. Remember, when Ezekiel had received these prophecies, Israel was still in Babylon, captives of the Babylonian/Mede/Persian empire. So, it is possible that this prophecy is about the second temple and how God wanted it rebuilt.

Now, is this a conditional prophecy, like Jonas' prophecy concerning Ninevah, or is it unconditional? Ezekiel 43 answers that.

We begin with verse 8.
In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger. (vs 9)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.

Now, we see God doing two things. 1. He is explaining to Ezekiel what He had just done to Israel. 2. He is making a condition for Israel. He is telling them to forsake the wickedness of the past, and come and dwell with Him. This is definitely conditional. But there is more.

Verse 10
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. (vs 11)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.

Now, is it any more obvious that chapters 40-44 have nothing to do with the end times? Even the priests of Zadok are mentioned here, and they were referenced in not only Isaiah, but Jeremiah as well, right along with Zerubabbel. This whole portion of scripture is concerning Israel and their soon-to-be exodus back to their homeland, after the first dispersion. Moreover, since the word "if" is used, this would become a conditional scripture, dealing with their near future whic hwould be our very ancient past. There is no Millennial reference here.

What I have learned in my studies of the Old Testament is this. While it is true that God's offers to Israel are conditional, they are not contingent. The fact that Israel has yet to feel the shame specified in verse 10, doesn't mean they won't. If we read the rest of Ezekiel, we find passages in which God tells Israel that he will bring them back to the land, and they will know that he is the Lord. These prophesies have yet to be fulfilled, "For his lovingkindness is everlasting."

Moreover, God declares that the House of Zadok will be priests forever.

14 `Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, `when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 `In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 `In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is [the name] by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.' 17 "For thus says the Lord, `David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.' " Jeremiah 33:13

David Taylor
Aug 11th 2008, 03:37 PM
If we read the rest of Ezekiel, we find passages in which God tells Israel that he will bring them back to the land, and they will know that he is the Lord.

God did bring them back to the Land and they did know that He was the Lord....soon after Ezekiel wrote his book.

Ezra and Nehemiah describe the return of the 12 tribes of Israel from captivity back into their lands AND their soon rebuilding of the stone temple and reistatement of sacrificial system by the priests.

John146
Aug 11th 2008, 03:47 PM
Amen. Christ shedding of his blood did not anull pervious promises to Israel. There will be a temple and continued sacrifices after Christ returns however not during a millenial kingdom but thoughout all eternity.

These will be done for a memorial unto all of Israel and will point that they were and always be insufficient. Note that God says he will MULTIPLY Israel in his midst for generation unto generation and these continued sacrifices will potentially lead their offspring to salvation.

MarkIn Ezekiel 40-48, there is no mention at all that the sin offerings would be performed as a memorial. You are reading that idea into the text, but it's nowhere to be found. Instead, it says this:

Eze 45:17 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.

Eze 46:20 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.

Again, the text says the purpose of the sin offerings would be "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "to sanctify the people". But Jesus has already accomplished this with His shed blood on the cross.

John146
Aug 11th 2008, 03:50 PM
Here is something that Eric and I actually agree on!Stop the presses! ;)

BroRog
Aug 12th 2008, 05:17 AM
God did bring them back to the Land and they did know that He was the Lord....soon after Ezekiel wrote his book.

Ezra and Nehemiah describe the return of the 12 tribes of Israel from captivity back into their lands AND their soon rebuilding of the stone temple and reistatement of sacrificial system by the priests.

sigh . . . Of course. But David, surely you know I was being brief. The scriptures predict a return to the land, yes. But along with that, God pours out his spirit on them all and they all come to belief. That has not happened yet.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2008, 05:22 AM
In Ezekiel 40-48, there is no mention at all that the sin offerings would be performed as a memorial. You are reading that idea into the text, but it's nowhere to be found. Instead, it says this:

Eze 45:17 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.

Eze 46:20 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.

Again, the text says the purpose of the sin offerings would be "to make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and "to sanctify the people". But Jesus has already accomplished this with His shed blood on the cross.

John, does the term "sanctify" and "reconciliation" always refer to salvation?

John146
Aug 12th 2008, 03:36 PM
John, does the term "sanctify" and "reconciliation" always refer to salvation?Not necessarily, I suppose, but in what way would Israel need to be reconciled or sanctified by sin offerings in the future? How would these sin offerings accomplish what Christ has already accomplished by His once for all sin offering on the cross? Don't you know that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin (Heb 10:6) and that "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10)?

third hero
Aug 13th 2008, 03:52 AM
OK Doug,
When someone makes a generalization that Premillennialism teaches that Ezekiel 40-48 is a future literal expectation; and the animal sacrifices describe within those chapters are literally expect; this isn't inaccurate or untruth.

Most believers of the Premillennialism view believe and expect this to occur.
(There are always minority exceptions to any view).

Besides, the topic of this OPs thread is 'millennial sacrifices' and only the Premill viewpoint expects this. Amill and Postmill don't; so wpm was within the subject of the OP to begin with.

Similarly, if you made a blanket generalization that Amillennialism believes that Satan was bound in the 1st century; that would be true of most Amillennialists views as well (although there are assuredly some who disagree).

So don't try to run wpm through the ringer for making a general statement that is in accordance with the majority understanding of that view.

It's fine for you to step up and say you don't believe that in within your Premill understanding; but to say he is making untrue generalities is simply not correct or warranted.

Amillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believes Satan was bound in the 1st century.

Premillennialism by the vast majority of its adherents, believe in a future literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48, including its animal sacrifices.

There are always minority exceptions to every general viewpoint.

My apologies, David. Yes, you are correct. I was just reading the OP and I instantly thought that Paul had lumped the Historical Premils into the Dispensation crowd, which I have staunchly debated against.

And so, I would have to say that I agree with the OP that there will be no animal sacrifices during the Millennial Reign.

yoSAMite
Aug 13th 2008, 05:10 PM
I must make a disclaimer up front. I've not studied this matter deeply, though it is on the radar for part of my millennial study. And as usual the amil crowd brings up some excellent point that need to be studied to be approved.

That being said I do have a question concerning:

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.

I do believe there will be animal sacrifices during the millennium, as per Ezek 40-48. I've not ever tried to justify them as a memorial. In fact I don't think I've ever thought one needed a reason to believe what the Bible says other than it says so.

So I read with interest your reason why this part of Scripture is moot and the point of the sacrifices must point to the future. With this in mind I'm wondering if the Lords Supper will be an ongoing event when Jesus returns as I haven't found any indication that it will stop or continue other than Jesus saying in Luke 22:18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.

Again, just beginning thoughts.

markedward
Aug 13th 2008, 10:09 PM
If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.Jesus specifically say "Do this in remembrance of Me," making the actions described purely a "Let us remember" act.

The sacrifices Ezekiel presents specifically say they are for atonement of sin, making the actions described entirely about atoning for sin, which means they aren't mere "Let us remember" acts. They have a specific purpose and Ezekiel says that is for "atonement." If Jesus is presiding over sacrifices that make "atonement" for a person's sins, then that means His sacrifice wasn't truly "once for all" as the NT teaches.

In my opinion, this necessitates a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies, during the era before Christ's incarnation.

threebigrocks
Aug 14th 2008, 03:49 PM
Not necessarily, I suppose, but in what way would Israel need to be reconciled or sanctified by sin offerings in the future? How would these sin offerings accomplish what Christ has already accomplished by His once for all sin offering on the cross? Don't you know that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin (Heb 10:6) and that "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10)?

:) That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.

John146
Aug 14th 2008, 04:12 PM
I must make a disclaimer up front. I've not studied this matter deeply, though it is on the radar for part of my millennial study. And as usual the amil crowd brings up some excellent point that need to be studied to be approved.

That being said I do have a question concerning:

I do believe there will be animal sacrifices during the millennium, as per Ezek 40-48. I've not ever tried to justify them as a memorial. In fact I don't think I've ever thought one needed a reason to believe what the Bible says other than it says so.You don't think it's important for the Bible to be consistent in what it teaches? How do you reconcile your view with what is taught in the book of Hebrews regarding animal sacrifices not being pleasing to the Lord and how it teaches that Christ made the once and for all sacrifice for sin on the cross? How can there possibly be additional sin offerings made in the future in light of Christ's once and for all sin offering He made long ago?


So I read with interest your reason why this part of Scripture is moot and the point of the sacrifices must point to the future. With this in mind I'm wondering if the Lords Supper will be an ongoing event when Jesus returns as I haven't found any indication that it will stop or continue other than Jesus saying in Luke 22:18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

If celebrating the Lords Supper will continue "in remembrance" it seems that the believing the sacrifices mentioned in Ezek 40-48 continuing in the new temple may not such a reach.

Again, just beginning thoughts.It is a reach because if that was to happen, it would make a mockery of the book of Hebrews. Have you ever studied the book of Hebrews in depth before?

John146
Aug 14th 2008, 04:17 PM
:) That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.Do animal sacrifices please God or not? Why would God want people to do something that doesn't please Him?

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.

Animal sacrifices were only a shadow of something better to come: Christ's sacrifice. Why go back to the shadow? Why go back to something that doesn't even please the Lord? Why would the old covenant be taken away in favor of the new covenant only to be reinstituted again in the future?

threebigrocks
Aug 14th 2008, 04:28 PM
Do animal sacrifices please God or not? Why would God want people to do something that doesn't please Him?

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.

Animal sacrifices were only a shadow of something better to come: Christ's sacrifice. Why go back to the shadow? Why go back to something that doesn't even please the Lord? Why would the old covenant be taken away in favor of the new covenant only to be reinstituted again in the future?


I'm not disagreeing with you my friend. That is all truth. But does truth apply to those who don't accept the sacrafice of Christ? No. Even in the OT, Isaiah 1, God was tired and said He didn't desire the sacrifice, festivals and sabbaths any longer. He wanted the hearts of men through faith as we see in Abraham. That didn't stop the Jews from continuing them though. It didn't stop them then in THEIR faith, and it won't stop them to begin to do the same.

Sacrafice was something people did to make themselves righteous before the eyes of God, to atone for sin. The times that lay just ahead will manifest that notion of self righteousness. The antichrist will sit in the wing of the temple - that should say much. It isn't of God, we know that. It's God's way of allowing man to be given over to what they choose to place their faith in. Not all believe, and they will be more concerned with saving their own skin than focused on the truth as you shared.

Simply, it's in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness. It isn't new, it just hasn't been carried out since 70AD. Since then, man has found plenty of sin and self righteousness in other places.

John146
Aug 14th 2008, 06:34 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you my friend. That is all truth. But does truth apply to those who don't accept the sacrafice of Christ? No. Even in the OT, Isaiah 1, God was tired and said He didn't desire the sacrifice, festivals and sabbaths any longer. He wanted the hearts of men through faith as we see in Abraham. That didn't stop the Jews from continuing them though. It didn't stop them then in THEIR faith, and it won't stop them to begin to do the same.Ezekiel 40-48 does not describe people doing sacrifices because they mistakenly think that's what they're supposed to do to win God's favor. It also does not say that they were to be performed by people who don't believe in the true Messiah. They were to be performed by true believers according to the instructions given by God Himself.


Sacrafice was something people did to make themselves righteous before the eyes of God, to atone for sin. The times that lay just ahead will manifest that notion of self righteousness. The antichrist will sit in the wing of the temple - that should say much. It isn't of God, we know that. It's God's way of allowing man to be given over to what they choose to place their faith in. Not all believe, and they will be more concerned with saving their own skin than focused on the truth as you shared. I thought we were talking about Ezekiel 40-48 and about sacrifices being performed during the supposed future millennium? The title of this thread is "Millennial Sacrifices???", right? Where does Ezekiel 40-48 say anything about a supposed antichrist sitting in the wing of the temple?



Simply, it's in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness. It isn't new, it just hasn't been carried out since 70AD. Since then, man has found plenty of sin and self righteousness in other places.Where is the evidence in scripture to suggest that it is God's plan "to allow man to continue in sin and self righteousness" even after Christ returns? I think you're speaking about something you believe will happen before Christ returns, but this thread is about whether or not sacrifices will be performed in Jerusalem AFTER Christ returns during a supposed future earthly millennial kingdom.

markedward
Aug 14th 2008, 11:26 PM
:) That is just it. We as believers will see it that way. "It's already accomplished, what's the point?" Thing is, it isn't going to be true believers that take part in them. It will be those who still see purpose in performing those sacrifices - of blood by an animal or of grain or whatnot - that will do them. They will be started by the Jewish people who practice the orthodox faith. It makes total sense to them, looking back at their history, to do so. It isn't against our faith, or against God's plan - it's a part of what is to come. We will see it as you stated, and know it's a sign.

Times are changing, and what lays ahead is going to be far different than what we have had in our lifetime and in the last 2000 years that Christianity has existed.I may be mistaken, but are you saying that the sacrifices Ezekiel described are ones performed by Jews during the end-times, meaning it isn't the true followers of God who are performing them?

As John146 pointed out, "Ezekiel 40-48 does not describe people doing sacrifices because they mistakenly think that's what they're supposed to."

Ezekiel 45 outright says that "the Sovereign LORD" was telling Ezekiel what sort of sacrifices to make... He wasn't prophesying that misguided followers would make sacrifices that were worthless, Ezekiel says God Himself is attributing "atonement" to the sacrifices that are prophesied to be performed in Ezekiel's future.


This is the special gift you are to offer...God is instructing Ezekiel what to do, He's not explaining the mistaken actions of misguided followers.


These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign LORD.God Himself is saying that people's sins would be atoned for by the offerings made. He is not saying "People will mistakenly do this." He is telling people to do it, meaning He's telling people to make temple sacrifices.

You're simply reading too much into the text that simply isn't there. You say it's "simply ... in God's plan to allow man to continue in sin." Ezekiel doesn't describe God in "allowing" people to continue the sacrifices (sin, according to you). Ezekiel describes God in telling people to continue the sacrifices.



Now, this you didn't bring up, but I'll address it anyway. Ezekiel 46 describes a "prince" performing the temple sacrifices. Some people often mistake this prince for Jesus (you may not, I don't know, but I know some do). Is Jesus going to have His own literal sons?


If the prince makes a gift from his inheritance to one of his sons, it will also belong to his descendents.The text speaks of the prince's sons descendents. If Christ is this prince as some suppose, is He going to have sons and descendents? His wife is the whole church, not a single woman whom He will physically have children with.

third hero
Aug 16th 2008, 06:20 PM
What I have learned in my studies of the Old Testament is this. While it is true that God's offers to Israel are conditional, they are not contingent. The fact that Israel has yet to feel the shame specified in verse 10, doesn't mean they won't. If we read the rest of Ezekiel, we find passages in which God tells Israel that he will bring them back to the land, and they will know that he is the Lord. These prophesies have yet to be fulfilled, "For his loving kindness is everlasting."

Moreover, God declares that the House of Zadok will be priests forever.

14 `Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, `when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 `In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 `In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is [the name] by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.' 17 "For thus says the Lord, `David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.' " Jeremiah 33:13

Remember, when Jeremiah was prophesying, he dealt mainly with the fact that God was going to punish Israel with exile from the land. He even wrote a book of Lamentations because of what God was going to do. So, with that in mind, the scripture you are using actually was fulfilled when the Lord brought them back from Babylon.

Also, it can not be ignored that Ezekiel starts off by stating a different time where he receives this vision, the one of the temple. Here, take a look at this:

Ezekiel 32:1
And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

And compare that to Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Notice that between the two series of prophecies 12 years pass? This shows that the anger of the Lord, which was the topic of God's word given to Ezekiel from chapters 32-39, which included the end times scenario in chapters 36-39, is not even connected remotely to the prophecies in chapters 40-45.

And so, to connect the two that are separated by at least twelve years and two very different topics is, in my opinion, erroneous.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2008, 01:31 AM
Remember, when Jeremiah was prophesying, he dealt mainly with the fact that God was going to punish Israel with exile from the land. He even wrote a book of Lamentations because of what God was going to do. So, with that in mind, the scripture you are using actually was fulfilled when the Lord brought them back from Babylon.

Also, it can not be ignored that Ezekiel starts off by stating a different time where he receives this vision, the one of the temple. Here, take a look at this:

Ezekiel 32:1
And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first [day] of the month, [that] the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

And compare that to Ezekiel 40:1
In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Notice that between the two series of prophecies 12 years pass? This shows that the anger of the Lord, which was the topic of God's word given to Ezekiel from chapters 32-39, which included the end times scenario in chapters 36-39, is not even connected remotely to the prophecies in chapters 40-45.

And so, to connect the two that are separated by at least twelve years and two very different topics is, in my opinion, erroneous.

:huh:

If God says that David will have his throne in perpetuity and Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity, then it really doesn't matter whether one chapter is connected to another or that the people returned from Babylon 70 years after the captivity.

So I don't get the point you are making.

third hero
Aug 17th 2008, 04:44 AM
:huh:

If God says that David will have his throne in perpetuity and Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity, then it really doesn't matter whether one chapter is connected to another or that the people returned from Babylon 70 years after the captivity.

So I don't get the point you are making.

A couple of points, I am making. Understand, you will... (Soul calibur 4 has Yoda, and I am just hooked on it!)

1. The two topics in Ezekiel are separated by 12 years.

Why is that important? Simple. Chapters 40-44 deal with a temple and the people of Israel coming back to their homeland. This is by no means connected to the end times scenario that God shows Ezekiel in chap0ters 36-39.

2. Chapters 40-44 deal with Israel personally, and not the rest of the nations, as God is dealing with in chapters 32-39.

Lots of times, especially with this book in particular, people read chapters 32-44 and lump them into the same mould. Just because chapter 40 comes right after chapter 39 does not mean that the two chapters are linked. It is just like any other prophetic book in the Bible. Isaiah's prophecies jump all over time and eternity, as does Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, and many of the others. There really is no cohesion there except that those prophecies were given to the same prophet. The only way to really provide cohesion is to piece together bits and pieces of the text in what would make the most sense. Because Jesus has already done the hard part, it should be much much easier for us to figure out which prophecy goes into what time period.

For instance. Jesus is the only sacrifice that can make atonement of sin. Before Christ died, He forgave a man his sins before he healed him, so that the people know that HE is the only one that can forgive sin. Since then, nothing else can make atonement. Even before Christ walked this earth, Isaiah mentions that God does not accept animal sacrifices for atonement of sin, and mind you, they had to still make the sacrifice, even if it was useless.

Now, look at Ezekiel 43. We find that the priests are commanded to make the sacrifice offerings for atonement of sin. Can this happen in the post-sacrifical era? No. Only Jesus can atone us of oour sins, whether others believe that or not. So, if that is the case, we have to dig a little deeper.

In Ezekiel 43, God tells Ezekiel to tell the people what He had shown him. Before He tells them that command, He explains what He did and why. (Ezekiel 43:6-8). Afterwards, He tells Ezekiel of His intentions for Israel, (verses 9-10). Then He gives the command.

If we look into history, we find that God consumed Israel in His wrath only twice. The first time, He used Babylon. The second He used Rome. I have not heard from any prophet that mentioned to Israel that God is bringing them back to their homeland after the second exile. However, it is written that God did speak to the prophets concerning the first return from exile. And this is exactly what Ezekiel 40-44 is. These prophecies were dealing with the first exile period.

All of the pieces fit together. Ezekiel was a well known prophet that God used primarily for the Israelites who were in exile. He was comissioned during that period and the majority of his prophecies dealt with that time period. When this prophecy was given to him, twenty-five years had passed since the day of their exile, and God was preparing them to come back to the land that He gave their forefathers.

This is why chapter 43 is so important. It explains which time period this set of prophecies were for, and also it shows the conditions in which these prophecies would be fulfilled. If Israel had have acted in the way that God wanted them to, then this prophecy would have been fulfilled. However, they did not, and I believe the evidence is found in Ezra 3:10-13. God wanted Israel to mourn after what they had lost, and many did not, and therefore, like Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah, the fulfillment was not to happen.

yoSAMite
Aug 17th 2008, 06:50 PM
markward said:
Jesus specifically say "Do this in remembrance of Me," making the actions described purely a "Let us remember" act.I understand what you are saying, but what I'm wondering more specifically is why would this need to be done "in remembrance" when Jesus is present. In the same way could the Ezekiel sacrifices be done "in remembrance" since these would be post cross? I think we'd agree that sacrifices before the cross didn't take away sins and I think it's evident that any done after the cross would also not take away sins.

On further thought, I'm wondering why the Lords Supper would even be done in Eternity, which I'm assuming you believe would be the time we are in after 2nd coming.


In my opinion, this necessitates a past fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies, during the era before Christ's incarnation.If that is the case, where is the temple that is prophesied?

john146 asked

You don't think it's important for the Bible to be consistent in what it teaches?Besides being a somewhat condescending question, the answer is yes I do think it's important for the Bible to consistent in what it teaches. Not only that, I believe it is, when serious study is done.


How do you reconcile your view with what is taught in the book of Hebrews regarding animal sacrifices not being pleasing to the Lord and how it teaches that Christ made the once and for all sacrifice for sin on the cross? How can there possibly be additional sin offerings made in the future in light of Christ's once and for all sin offering He made long ago?I'm still looking into this and the more I'm reading the further I'm moving away from the notion that Ezek 40-48 is a conditional prophecy.


Have you ever studied the book of Hebrews in depth before? I have, but not in the context of the Ezek prophecy in question here.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2008, 07:31 PM
A couple of points, I am making. Understand, you will... (Soul calibur 4 has Yoda, and I am just hooked on it!)

1. The two topics in Ezekiel are separated by 12 years.

Why is that important? Simple. Chapters 40-44 deal with a temple and the people of Israel coming back to their homeland. This is by no means connected to the end times scenario that God shows Ezekiel in chap0ters 36-39.

2. Chapters 40-44 deal with Israel personally, and not the rest of the nations, as God is dealing with in chapters 32-39.

Lots of times, especially with this book in particular, people read chapters 32-44 and lump them into the same mould. Just because chapter 40 comes right after chapter 39 does not mean that the two chapters are linked. It is just like any other prophetic book in the Bible. Isaiah's prophecies jump all over time and eternity, as does Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, and many of the others. There really is no cohesion there except that those prophecies were given to the same prophet. The only way to really provide cohesion is to piece together bits and pieces of the text in what would make the most sense. Because Jesus has already done the hard part, it should be much much easier for us to figure out which prophecy goes into what time period.

For instance. Jesus is the only sacrifice that can make atonement of sin. Before Christ died, He forgave a man his sins before he healed him, so that the people know that HE is the only one that can forgive sin. Since then, nothing else can make atonement. Even before Christ walked this earth, Isaiah mentions that God does not accept animal sacrifices for atonement of sin, and mind you, they had to still make the sacrifice, even if it was useless.

Now, look at Ezekiel 43. We find that the priests are commanded to make the sacrifice offerings for atonement of sin. Can this happen in the post-sacrifical era? No. Only Jesus can atone us of oour sins, whether others believe that or not. So, if that is the case, we have to dig a little deeper.

In Ezekiel 43, God tells Ezekiel to tell the people what He had shown him. Before He tells them that command, He explains what He did and why. (Ezekiel 43:6-8). Afterwards, He tells Ezekiel of His intentions for Israel, (verses 9-10). Then He gives the command.

If we look into history, we find that God consumed Israel in His wrath only twice. The first time, He used Babylon. The second He used Rome. I have not heard from any prophet that mentioned to Israel that God is bringing them back to their homeland after the second exile. However, it is written that God did speak to the prophets concerning the first return from exile. And this is exactly what Ezekiel 40-44 is. These prophecies were dealing with the first exile period.

All of the pieces fit together. Ezekiel was a well known prophet that God used primarily for the Israelites who were in exile. He was comissioned during that period and the majority of his prophecies dealt with that time period. When this prophecy was given to him, twenty-five years had passed since the day of their exile, and God was preparing them to come back to the land that He gave their forefathers.

This is why chapter 43 is so important. It explains which time period this set of prophecies were for, and also it shows the conditions in which these prophecies would be fulfilled. If Israel had have acted in the way that God wanted them to, then this prophecy would have been fulfilled. However, they did not, and I believe the evidence is found in Ezra 3:10-13. God wanted Israel to mourn after what they had lost, and many did not, and therefore, like Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah, the fulfillment was not to happen.

I understand your explanation. But your point, i.e. that Ezekiel 40-44 applies to the first exile period is not much of a rebuttal of Jeremiah's word from the Lord that Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity. God is not one to break his promises.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2008, 07:49 PM
As for the idea that Ezekiel 40-44 is for the first exile period, I have a hard time believing this concept since some verses make no sense for that period. For example, in chapter 43, God says to Ezekiel,

He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die, by setting their threshold by My threshold and their door post beside My door post, with only the wall between Me and them. And they have defiled My holy name by their abominations which they have committed. So I have consumed them in My anger.

Unless I am missing something, God is not now dwelling among the sons of Israel in Ezekiel's temple.

markedward
Aug 18th 2008, 02:49 AM
I understand what you are saying, but what I'm wondering more specifically is why would this need to be done "in remembrance" when Jesus is present. In the same way could the Ezekiel sacrifices be done "in remembrance" since these would be post cross? I think we'd agree that sacrifices before the cross didn't take away sins and I think it's evident that any done after the cross would also not take away sins.In that case, why aren't the Christians clamoring for a new temple right now to perform sacrifices in? Nearly all Christians would find it highly blasphemous to perform sacrifices now as sin-offerings (precisely what Scripture calls the sacrifices) because it contradicts the entirely of Christ's actions. In that case, if it's wrong to do now, why do it ever again?


On further thought, I'm wondering why the Lords Supper would even be done in Eternity, which I'm assuming you believe would be the time we are in after 2nd coming.I can't say for certain on this one, since the Bible doesn't describe to us the actual things we will be doing in eternity, let alone the "Lord's Supper." The only thing I do say for certain, though, is the things that we won't do, one of which is sacrifices, since the NT says that Christ was the one sacrifice. Theologically speaking, a person could say that the Torah sacrifices looked forward to the final sacrifice, while the "Lord's Supper" looks back to it, though, again, the OT says that the sacrifices are for the sake of atonement while the Supper is simply for the sake of remembering.


If that is the case, where is the temple that is prophesied?The second temple of Jerusalem. There are earlier posts in this thread that point out the importance of the key word "if" in Ezekiel's prophecy about the second temple, however. First, you should know that Ezekiel prophesied the destruction of a temple. Reading his prophecies historically, it takes little research to determine that the temple that he prophesies to be destroyed is the first temple of Jerusalem. So, quite easily, what follows a first of something? The second of something. The idea proposed is that Ezekiel is prophesying a third temple, but this makes no sense for Ezekiel to prophesy the destruction of the first temple then prophesy the building of a third temple when he gives absolutely no warning that he is skipping the second temple.

markedward
Aug 18th 2008, 03:14 AM
I highly recommend reading Hebrews 9-10. This one chapter puts down the idea of any future sacrifices, and the manner in which it speaks of sacrifices does not allow for "memorial sacrifices."

Pay close attention to how many times the author says "once for all" in reference to Christ's sacrifice.

Reading 10:11-12. The author speaks of the OT sacrifices and places a specific emphasis on how many times the sacrifices need to be made: "day after day" and "again and again." Then he says that Christ has "for all time one sacrifice for sins." The author is contrasting the repetition of the OT sacrifices with singleness Christ's sacrifice. The OT sacrifices had to be done over and over, Christ's sacrifice needed to be done only once.

Jumping back to 10:1-4. The author speaks of the OT sacrifices, and says that if the OT sacrifices could "make perfect those who draw near to worship" that the sacrifices would then need to have been "stopped being offered," because they would have been perfect sacrifices. The author outright says that that a perfect sacrifice would result in the end of the imperfect "endlessly repeated" sacrifices.

In summary, the two points raised above are: A) The OT sacrifices were performed endlessly, but Christ's sacrifice is "one sacrifice" that suffices "for all time." B) If a perfect sacrifice could be performed, the OT sacrifices would need to "stop] being offered." The author is directly inferring that a single perfect sacrifice would bring an end to the repeated sacrifices, and since Christ's sacrifice is a single perfect sacrifice that He brought an end to the repeated sacrifices.

And finally, reading 10:18. The author says "where these [sins and lawless acts] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

No more sacrifices.

John146
Aug 18th 2008, 04:43 PM
I highly recommend reading Hebrews 9-10. This one chapter puts down the idea of any future sacrifices, and the manner in which it speaks of sacrifices does not allow for "memorial sacrifices."

Pay close attention to how many times the author says "once for all" in reference to Christ's sacrifice.

Reading 10:11-12. The author speaks of the OT sacrifices and places a specific emphasis on how many times the sacrifices need to be made: "day after day" and "again and again." Then he says that Christ has "for all time one sacrifice for sins." The author is contrasting the repetition of the OT sacrifices with singleness Christ's sacrifice. The OT sacrifices had to be done over and over, Christ's sacrifice needed to be done only once.

Jumping back to 10:1-4. The author speaks of the OT sacrifices, and says that if the OT sacrifices could "make perfect those who draw near to worship" that the sacrifices would then need to have been "stopped being offered," because they would have been perfect sacrifices. The author outright says that that a perfect sacrifice would result in the end of the imperfect "endlessly repeated" sacrifices.

In summary, the two points raised above are: A) The OT sacrifices were performed endlessly, but Christ's sacrifice is "one sacrifice" that suffices "for all time." B) If a perfect sacrifice could be performed, the OT sacrifices would need to "stop] being offered." The author is directly inferring that a single perfect sacrifice would bring an end to the repeated sacrifices, and since Christ's sacrifice is a single perfect sacrifice that He brought an end to the repeated sacrifices.

And finally, reading 10:18. The author says "where these [sins and lawless acts] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

No more sacrifices.Also, it can't be ignored that it points out more than once that God takes no pleasure in animal sacrifices. He's supposedly going to reinstitute something in which He takes no pleasure? No, I'm not going to buy that for a second.

valleybldr
Aug 18th 2008, 11:28 PM
Also, it can't be ignored that it points out more than once that God takes no pleasure in animal sacrifices. He's supposedly going to reinstitute something in which He takes no pleasure? No, I'm not going to buy that for a second. So he commanded and accepred something he took "no pleasure" in? I think your missing the point of the passage and completely ignoring what Ezekiel plainly states. todd

John146
Aug 19th 2008, 03:15 PM
So he commanded and accepred something he took "no pleasure" in? I think your missing the point of the passage and completely ignoring what Ezekiel plainly states. todd If you think I'm "completely ignoring what Ezekiel plainly states" then show me why you think so. What exactly am I "completely ignoring"? Since Christ made the once and for all sacrifice and offering long ago, why would any future sacrifices and offerings be needed, especially considering that God takes no pleasure in them?

wpm
Aug 27th 2008, 06:02 AM
Guys

I think this idea of memorial sacrifices cannot be argued from Scripture. Nowhere does it say that. No one so far has proved that. Premilennialism has created that (in my opinion) to allow several OT passages to fit into a supposed future age in-between this age and the age to come. I don't believe Scripture teaches of such an age. Scripture shows the cross as the final sin offering, so there is absolutely no use for these abolished sacrifices. This is a major difficulty for many of us who oppose the Premil paradigm. Scripture shows the Coming of the Lord as a time when both the righteous and the wicked will be judged collectively. There is no judgment passage that I can see that place 1,000 yrs in-between the judgment of the wicked and that of the righteous.

Paul

IPet2_9
Aug 27th 2008, 02:01 PM
I tend to agree that Christ made one sacrifice for ALL time. So I tend not to believe premill sacrifices are necessary.

That said, if Christ made the perfect sacrifice for ALL time, doesn't that mean both past & present? Yet we see sacrifices in the Old Testament. So there remains the possibility that there's something we still don't understand.
:hmm:

BroRog
Aug 27th 2008, 02:15 PM
Guys

I think this idea of memorial sacrifices cannot be argued from Scripture. Nowhere does it say that. No one so far has proved that. Premilennialism has created that (in my opinion) to allow several OT passages to fit into a supposed future age in-between this age and the age to come. I don't believe Scripture teaches of such an age. Scripture shows the cross as the final sin offering, so there is absolutely no use for these abolished sacrifices. This is a major difficulty for many of us who oppose the Premil paradigm. Scripture shows the Coming of the Lord as a time when both the righteous and the wicked will be judged collectively. There is no judgment passage that I can see that place 1,000 yrs in-between the judgment of the wicked and that of the righteous.

Paul

Paul, what was the original purpose of the sacrifices?

third hero
Aug 27th 2008, 02:58 PM
I understand your explanation. But your point, i.e. that Ezekiel 40-44 applies to the first exile period is not much of a rebuttal of Jeremiah's word from the Lord that Levi will have the priesthood in perpetuity. God is not one to break his promises.

I am not trying to tie together different scripture to bring about a scenario that neither scripture leads us to. Now if you want to bring up Jeremiah, then do so, but leave Ezekiel 40-44 out of it, because my explanation takes these scriptures out of the equation. Since these scriptures are what most dispensationalists use to prove the thought of a Millennial temple with sacrifices forsin attached to them, you, BroRog, have to go back to the drawing board to find another scripture that even comes close to proposing a Millennial Temple.

NOw, Levites are charged to Serve God, right? If the Lord is ruling from Jerusalem, who would attend him? Would it not be the Levites, who would serve as "Priests to Him? Instead of doing sacrificial offerings to the Lord, they will still be used by Him, to do whatever He desires for them to do. That does not break the prepetuity of serveice to God, and at the same time, it excludes the thought of any sort of animal sacrifice.

John146
Aug 27th 2008, 03:02 PM
I tend to agree that Christ made one sacrifice for ALL time. So I tend not to believe premill sacrifices are necessary.

That said, if Christ made the perfect sacrifice for ALL time, doesn't that mean both past & present? Yet we see sacrifices in the Old Testament. So there remains the possibility that there's something we still don't understand.
:hmm:But He didn't make that sacrifice until the OT times were over. He made the once and for all sacrifice so that no future sacrifices would ever be required.

third hero
Aug 27th 2008, 03:02 PM
Guys

I think this idea of memorial sacrifices cannot be argued from Scripture. Nowhere does it say that. No one so far has proved that. Premilennialism has created that (in my opinion) to allow several OT passages to fit into a supposed future age in-between this age and the age to come. I don't believe Scripture teaches of such an age. Scripture shows the cross as the final sin offering, so there is absolutely no use for these abolished sacrifices. This is a major difficulty for many of us who oppose the Premil paradigm. Scripture shows the Coming of the Lord as a time when both the righteous and the wicked will be judged collectively. There is no judgment passage that I can see that place 1,000 yrs in-between the judgment of the wicked and that of the righteous.

Paul

Again, Paul.
I am a premil. I am not a believer in a Millennial Temple complete with animal sacrifices. I really wish you would get it. This is not a "Premillennialism" thing. It is a Dispensational thing. I am tired of being lumped into the same mould as them.

You want to argue premil versus amil, then at least know what you are dealing with. Premillennialism is segmented, just like thje church is segmented. There are two camps: the Historical Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. I understand that you say you were a Historical Premil, but most of the historic Premils that have posted on this thread believe the same as I do. It is, therefore, my conclusion that you must have believed in some sort of hybrid premil system, one that includes segments of dispenasationalism into it. That is not true premillennialism, not then, or now.

SO, if you do not mind, just as I have stopped making generalizations about the amil POV, stop telling the world that all premils believe as you say they do, because I can emphatically tell you that you are WRONG.

IPet2_9
Aug 27th 2008, 03:41 PM
But He didn't make that sacrifice until the OT times were over. He made the once and for all sacrifice so that no future sacrifices would ever be required.

Sure, I understand that. But don't you think Jesus might have died for some Gentiles in OT times who came to know God as well? Or for Jews who were not perfect in making their sacrifices (which would probably be just about all of them)? I'm just suggesting that there is a bit of an unknown there. I tend to believe Millennial sacrifices are unnecessary, too, and for the same reason you do; but with that unknown there you can't entirely shut the door on it just yet.

IPet2_9
Aug 27th 2008, 03:47 PM
By the way, I think this discussion just helped me grow a little in Christ. I think I just gained a little insight as to why Jesus was called the Jews' savior, and why He came when He did.

At the time Jesus came, the Pharisees and the crooks hijacked the Temple. God required sacrifices of everyone for their sins, but the priests were blocking the people from being able to do that: you had to buy THEIR unblemished lambs, at inflated prices. You had to go through these crooks to atone for your sins. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for all. The Temple veil was torn away--and that's why Christ came when He did.

John146
Aug 27th 2008, 03:48 PM
Sure, I understand that. But don't you think Jesus might have died for some Gentiles in OT times who came to know God as well? Or for Jews who were not perfect in making their sacrifices (which would probably be just about all of them)? I'm just suggesting that there is a bit of an unknown there. I tend to believe Millennial sacrifices are unnecessary, too, and for the same reason you do; but with that unknown there you can't entirely shut the door on it just yet.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.

the rookie
Aug 27th 2008, 04:01 PM
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
Aug 27th 2008, 04:12 PM
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
Aug 27th 2008, 04:19 PM
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
Aug 27th 2008, 04:58 PM
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
Aug 28th 2008, 04:35 AM
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
Aug 28th 2008, 04:47 AM
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
Aug 28th 2008, 01:56 PM
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
Aug 28th 2008, 02:32 PM
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
Aug 28th 2008, 04:14 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 01:30 PM
Can someone give me the quick explanation of the Amil interpretation and application of Ezekiel's temple?

the rookie
Aug 29th 2008, 01:44 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 01:59 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 02:23 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 02:25 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 02:41 PM
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?

Cyberseeker
Aug 29th 2008, 02:59 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 03:11 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 03:17 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 05:17 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 05:36 PM
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
Aug 29th 2008, 06:01 PM
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 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr013.html#8) Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, and today, and forever.

No "change" necessary!
:D

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

yoSAMite
Aug 29th 2008, 07:39 PM
Cyber replied to BroRog
Originally Posted by BroRog http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1767986#post1767986)
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
Aug 29th 2008, 09:34 PM
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, :hmm: maybe just as well God kicked it in the guts!

the rookie
Aug 30th 2008, 04:00 AM
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
Aug 30th 2008, 04:11 AM
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
Aug 30th 2008, 04:25 AM
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
Aug 30th 2008, 01:03 PM
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
Aug 30th 2008, 02:42 PM
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, :hmm: 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
Aug 30th 2008, 03:01 PM
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
Aug 30th 2008, 05:20 PM
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.

third hero
Aug 30th 2008, 06:58 PM
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.

Like I had originally stated, the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-44 had run along the same lines as Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah. Ninevah was not destroyed. Why? Because Jonah's prophecy was what we call conditional. Ninevah was not destroyed because of their response to God's prophecy. The whole city repented of their sins, and God forgave them and spared their city. Just like when God thought about destroying all of Israel and restarting it with Moses descendents. Like the plans for the second Temple in Ezekiel 40-44. These were all conditional prophecies. The results of the prophecies were predicated on the actual responses of the Israelites, and as we have found out in Ezra, the results were so mixed that one could not tell whether they were celebrating or wailing, hence nullifying the Temple prophecy due to their lack of remorse. (Ezra 3:10-13).

This is not an Amil ideal, for I am not an Amil. This is an idea that is supported by scripture, which is ther main reason why I say that when the Lord comes to earth to rule it until the Last Day, He will not be using a Temple, or animal sacrifices that come with it. A Temple may be built, but the animal sacrifices will not be a part of it. The Lord, who is the only one who can forgive a man his sin, will be present on earth, and with that, there will be no need for animals to be slaughtered. And if He comes with the technology of today, He will literally only be a phone call away.

Ring RIng...
"THis is Lord Jesus, how may I help you?"
"Hi, I'm Doug, and I need forgiveness".
"Done."
"Thank you Lord!"
"Don't forget, party in Jerusalem in six months. BE THERE!"
"Yes my Lord".
"And DOn't forget the presents."
"Yes, my Lord."

So, why would he need to reinstate something tha has never really done anything in the first place?

Joyfulparousia
Aug 30th 2008, 11:44 PM
So, why would he need to reinstate something tha has never really done anything in the first place?

Maybe its reinstated not out of necessity but out of remembrance. Imagine being a human in the 3rd generation of humans born into the millennium, it would be a totally different time. In school, a child would learn about Jesus at His first coming, the end of the age martyrs, the rise of the Antichrist; their text books would speak of Revelation 19 and Christ triumphant return, etc etc.

Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years).

Joyfulparousia
Aug 30th 2008, 11:50 PM
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.)


I think you've misunderstood Ezekiel's temple. The temple of Ez 40-44 is believed to be the 4th temple. The 3rd temple (which is still future) will be built by Orthodox Jews; this will be accomplished by a treaty that is brokered by Antichrist to bring peace in the Middle eastern nations (i.e. convince Muslims to let the Jews rebuild the temple). It is in this 3rd temple that Antichrist commits the Abomination of Desolation and sets up his image. The 3rd temple will be destroyed (mostly likely by the bowls and the earthquake). The 4th temple (believed by some to be Ezekiel's temple) will be reconstructed by Jesus, Israel, and "some from far off lands".

Zec 6:15 And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of Jehovah; and ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of Jehovah your God.

Hope that makes sense :) Other premils who have more clarity on this feel free to correct me

wpm
Aug 31st 2008, 12:52 AM
Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years).

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.

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"?

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

Paul

markdrums
Aug 31st 2008, 01:53 AM
Like I had originally stated, the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-44 had run along the same lines as Jonah's prophecy to Ninevah. Ninevah was not destroyed. Why? Because Jonah's prophecy was what we call conditional. Ninevah was not destroyed because of their response to God's prophecy. The whole city repented of their sins, and God forgave them and spared their city. Just like when God thought about destroying all of Israel and restarting it with Moses descendents. Like the plans for the second Temple in Ezekiel 40-44. These were all conditional prophecies. The results of the prophecies were predicated on the actual responses of the Israelites, and as we have found out in Ezra, the results were so mixed that one could not tell whether they were celebrating or wailing, hence nullifying the Temple prophecy due to their lack of remorse. (Ezra 3:10-13).

This is not an Amil ideal, for I am not an Amil. This is an idea that is supported by scripture, which is ther main reason why I say that when the Lord comes to earth to rule it until the Last Day, He will not be using a Temple, or animal sacrifices that come with it. A Temple may be built, but the animal sacrifices will not be a part of it. The Lord, who is the only one who can forgive a man his sin, will be present on earth, and with that, there will be no need for animals to be slaughtered. And if He comes with the technology of today, He will literally only be a phone call away.

Ring RIng...
"THis is Lord Jesus, how may I help you?"
"Hi, I'm Doug, and I need forgiveness".
"Done."
"Thank you Lord!"
"Don't forget, party in Jerusalem in six months. BE THERE!"
"Yes my Lord".
"And DOn't forget the presents."
"Yes, my Lord."

So, why would he need to reinstate something tha has never really done anything in the first place?

I'm gonna try to respond to a couple posts.
Although I can't put myself in an "Escatalogical" group; such as "A-Mill or Pre-Mill , or, Post Mill," (or Mid Mill"...... LOL!! ) etc..... I do understande where the idea comes from in each of them.
And if I HAD TO choose a group to classify myself as, I'd say "A-mill, Partial Preterist, "final futurist" / tough of historicist......
Meaning that; I try to interpret scripture based on on what scripture says, and has ALWAYS said!

OK:
Concerning the post by: Joyfulparousia goes:
Jesus said to the disciples; "Do THIS in remberance of me:.... that being the "last supper / communion. It represented the fulfillment of the "LAWS" as well as the sacrificial system.
There will be no "memorial sacrifices" in the future.......
That is exactly what COMMUNION is.

Think about it. What are we celebrating? JESUS' ULTIMATE Sacrifice. He told us to remember THAT. Not the blood of animals.

Cyberseeker
Aug 31st 2008, 03:11 AM
And if I HAD TO choose a group to classify myself as, I'd say "A-mill, Partial Preterist, "final futurist" / tough of historicist......

:hmm: Hmmm, the dreaded APPFFTH eh?

third hero
Aug 31st 2008, 04:20 AM
OK:
Concerning the post by: Joyfulparousia goes:
Jesus said to the disciples; "Do THIS in remberance of me:.... that being the "last supper / communion. It represented the fulfillment of the "LAWS" as well as the sacrificial system.
There will be no "memorial sacrifices" in the future.......
That is exactly what COMMUNION is.

Think about it. What are we celebrating? JESUS' ULTIMATE Sacrifice. He told us to remember THAT. Not the blood of animals.


Arrgh! You beat me to the punch.... :o
;)

Really, scripture is clear on this issue, IMHO. When Jesus died for all of our sins, we did not have to sacrifice anything in order to remember what He had done. Simple foods became symbols of that remembrance. The context of Ezekiel's prophecy inn chapter 43 makes it obvious that the atonement sacrifices HAD to be made, in order for God to forgive Israel of her past sins. There is no part of that context that states that the animal sacrifices was to be "in remembrance" of anything. The priests were not making memorial sacrifices, acccording to the contents of that prophecy.

Moreover, a prophet does not always gain prophecies in chronological order. In Isaiah, the Messiah is first mentioned as the one in whom all of the governments of the world would be led by. Later on in his book, he gains knowledge from God that the Messiah would be sacrificed. The only thing that is chronological in the prophecies of the OT prophets is the times in which they have received their prophecies.

For instance, Ezekiel's set of prophecies concerning the destruction of the nations and judgement of said nations happened 13 years BEFORE he received the prophecies concerning the Temple in dispute. This has to account for something. The tone of the prophecies, the topics, and the judgments of those two sets of prophecies are completely different. IN the set between chapters 32 and 39, God is judging all of the nations, with Israel being first. In chapters 40-44, God is talking about restoring Israel, offering them altimatums in exchange for obedience to Him. This is an entirely different topic than the judgments of the nations of chapter 32-39.

Therefore, it is my opinion that because of the time differences between the two sets of prophecies and the topics are completely different, that the content of chapters 40-48 have nothing to do with the Second coming, but what should have happened in Israel if only they took heed to the commandments that God gave Ezekiel to give them. Today, like they have for the last 2600 years, these scriptures serve as a reminder of what they could have had, if only they obeyed the Lord instead of following after their own selfish greed.

third hero
Aug 31st 2008, 04:23 AM
I'm gonna try to respond to a couple posts.
Although I can't put myself in an "Escatalogical" group; such as "A-Mill or Pre-Mill , or, Post Mill," (or Mid Mill"...... LOL!! ) etc..... I do understande where the idea comes from in each of them.
And if I HAD TO choose a group to classify myself as, I'd say "A-mill, Partial Preterist, "final futurist" / tough of historicist......
Meaning that; I try to interpret scripture based on on what scripture says, and has ALWAYS said!



Now that's a mouthful! I like to keep things simple, that's why I am a card-carrying member of the PSA (Premillennium Superfriends Association). :rofl:(it's BAACK!)

Joyfulparousia
Aug 31st 2008, 01:02 PM
I'm gonna try to respond to a couple posts.
Although I can't put myself in an "Escatalogical" group; such as "A-Mill or Pre-Mill , or, Post Mill," (or Mid Mill"...... LOL!! ) etc..... I do understande where the idea comes from in each of them.
And if I HAD TO choose a group to classify myself as, I'd say "A-mill, Partial Preterist, "final futurist" / tough of historicist......
Meaning that; I try to interpret scripture based on on what scripture says, and has ALWAYS said!

OK:
Concerning the post by: Joyfulparousia goes:
Jesus said to the disciples; "Do THIS in remberance of me:.... that being the "last supper / communion. It represented the fulfillment of the "LAWS" as well as the sacrificial system.
There will be no "memorial sacrifices" in the future.......
That is exactly what COMMUNION is.

Think about it. What are we celebrating? JESUS' ULTIMATE Sacrifice. He told us to remember THAT. Not the blood of animals.

Of course you'd be right about communion (i.e. celebrating atonement). But what about the other remembrance sacrifices/feasts?

Joyfulparousia
Aug 31st 2008, 01:10 PM
Arrgh! You beat me to the punch.... :o
;)

Really, scripture is clear on this issue, IMHO. When Jesus died for all of our sins, we did not have to sacrifice anything in order to remember what He had done. Simple foods became symbols of that remembrance. The context of Ezekiel's prophecy inn chapter 43 makes it obvious that the atonement sacrifices HAD to be made, in order for God to forgive Israel of her past sins. There is no part of that context that states that the animal sacrifices was to be "in remembrance" of anything. The priests were not making memorial sacrifices, acccording to the contents of that prophecy.

Moreover, a prophet does not always gain prophecies in chronological order. In Isaiah, the Messiah is first mentioned as the one in whom all of the governments of the world would be led by. Later on in his book, he gains knowledge from God that the Messiah would be sacrificed. The only thing that is chronological in the prophecies of the OT prophets is the times in which they have received their prophecies.

For instance, Ezekiel's set of prophecies concerning the destruction of the nations and judgement of said nations happened 13 years BEFORE he received the prophecies concerning the Temple in dispute. This has to account for something. The tone of the prophecies, the topics, and the judgments of those two sets of prophecies are completely different. IN the set between chapters 32 and 39, God is judging all of the nations, with Israel being first. In chapters 40-44, God is talking about restoring Israel, offering them altimatums in exchange for obedience to Him. This is an entirely different topic than the judgments of the nations of chapter 32-39.

Therefore, it is my opinion that because of the time differences between the two sets of prophecies and the topics are completely different, that the content of chapters 40-48 have nothing to do with the Second coming, but what should have happened in Israel if only they took heed to the commandments that God gave Ezekiel to give them. Today, like they have for the last 2600 years, these scriptures serve as a reminder of what they could have had, if only they obeyed the Lord instead of following after their own selfish greed.

I'm still struggling to see how Is 66:21 fits in (or apparently doesn't fit in). It says that the Lord will bring Gentiles to be priests and Levites into His holy mountain.

valleybldr
Aug 31st 2008, 01:42 PM
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. Some people seek to harmonize seemingly contradictory passages without dismissing one or the other.You may not agree but you should be able to "see" why this approach is held by some. todd

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 02:57 PM
Some people seek to harmonize seemingly contradictory passages without dismissing one or the other.You may not agree but you should be able to "see" why this approach is held by some. todd
You miss the point again – you fail to see the forest for the trees. Those who understand the NT reject a future reinstituted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals for “sin offerings” with a resurrected Mosaic worship system because it goes against everything taught in the NT and it is a direct slap in the face to the “once for all time” sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Why is the NT completely silent on this most peculiar anomaly? Were Jesus Christ and all of the inspired writers clueless? :hmm:

Joyfulparousia
Aug 31st 2008, 03:29 PM
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.

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"?

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

Paul


To whom was the conditional promise given?

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 03:56 PM
Maybe the temple sacrifices are meant to be a remembrance of the mercy of the Lord. Millennial humans would get to participate in daily reminders of what "was" and now "isn't". To say they're reinstated (implying out of necessity) I believe to be an overstatement. Did Israel, out of necessity, celebrate the feasts? No. They were commanded to to REMEMBER. I think in the millennium the Lord would have humans remember what was, so that they aren't doomed to repeat it (i.e. Satan's little season at the end of the 1000 years).
Can you provide scriptural support (chapter-verse) for this most non-scriptural notion? Where exactly does the Book reveal to us that “Millennial humans” (whatever that means) will participate in ritualistic animal sacrifices that belong to a dead religion for any purpose? The NT is clear – there is no sacrifice for sins via animal slaughter after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Your theology has a lot of "maybes" - why? Holy Writ is very specific regarding sacrifice and your notion is missing within its pages. Maybe you are wrong - has this ever crossed your mind?

BroRog
Aug 31st 2008, 09:49 PM
I agree, the logic doesn't hold up.

Thanks for saying so. I was beginning to wonder.

BroRog
Aug 31st 2008, 09:55 PM
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


You need to go back and review the instructions for the Day of Atonement. The sins of the people were put on the goat that was taken out into the wilderness. This is not a sign of covering but of removal and forgetting.

BroRog
Aug 31st 2008, 09:56 PM
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.




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

Cyber

What do you mean nope?

BroRog
Aug 31st 2008, 10:02 PM
You miss the point again – you fail to see the forest for the trees. Those who understand the NT reject a future reinstituted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals for “sin offerings” with a resurrected Mosaic worship system because it goes against everything taught in the NT and it is a direct slap in the face to the “once for all time” sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Why is the NT completely silent on this most peculiar anomaly? Were Jesus Christ and all of the inspired writers clueless? :hmm:

I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one.

But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 10:57 PM
I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one.



Why were Jesus and the inspired writers clueless about what was to come?


But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once againBut Paul clearly spoke of this purpose of the law to bring his people to Christ in the *past tense* not in some *future restoration* of the Levitical priesthood with the slaughter of thousands of animals. You are quite mistaken. This notion was not even a thought in anyone's mind until the advent of Darbyism - the error being floated on this thread.

third hero
Sep 1st 2008, 12:09 AM
I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one.

But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again.

The Levites do not have to have animal sacrifices in order to have a future with God. If you remember, during the golden calf incident, God claimed the Levites as His servants. When Christ returns and re-establishes Israel, he wil still need servants. He will require that all of the surviving families of the nations of the world make pilgrammages to Jerusalem every year until the end of time to worship Him, bearing gifts. He will need people to deal with the tribute that all of the earth will be giving Him, and many many other things in which they will have to do while still being under the service of Lord Jesus. The animal sacrifices do not have to be in place.

As a matter of fact, the Temple itself will not have to be in place, because whatever place Lord Jesus will have built for Him will become that very same HOLY place that His Father can call home. I know that if my father was ever a true dad to me, my house would be open to him. But Jesus doesn't have that problem, because His Father is the Greatest Father ever, and I am sure that if He, Lord Jesus, can lay His life down at the command of His Father, that sharing His house would not be a problem at all.

Cyberseeker
Sep 1st 2008, 12:13 AM
What do you mean nope?

I was referring to your hypothetical question: "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."

To which I said, "nope," but God might have let them keep the temple for a museum, or a hotel, or Jerusalem City Council offices - something like that.

God is a reasonable person. No need to destroy a nice building if the people had accepted his Son as the final atonement - the fulfillment of the temple.

:spin:

dispen4ever
Sep 1st 2008, 12:16 AM
Why all the preparations for it, right down to the utensils, the clothes the priests will wear, the furniture?............... Israel is buzzing with these preparations. :confused

BroRog
Sep 1st 2008, 12:21 AM
Why were Jesus and the inspired writers clueless about what was to come?

They weren't clueless as you suppose. What you assume to be untrue was assumed by them to be true and their writings shed light on what was to come, and did not destroy it as you imply.


But Paul clearly spoke of this purpose of the law to bring his people to Christ in the *past tense* not in some *future restoration* of the Levitical priesthood with the slaughter of thousands of animals. You are quite mistaken. This notion was not even a thought in anyone's mind until the advent of Darbyism - the error being floated on this thread.

Let's not get all emotional about it but deal in reason and fact. Logically, if the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system served to evangelize the Jews in the past, it can serve the same function in the future. Paul argues that once a man has Christ he no longer needs the tutor of the Law to guide him, which of course, is predicated on the idea that he has Christ. But if the man is in transition from paganism to Christ, obedience to God's law can be a proper intermediate step.

As we think this through to its logical end, we must bear in mind that our future Jewish brothers and sisters will not immediately jump from paganism and atheism to the affirmation of an fully formed systematic Christian theology. It has been my experience that people tend to take small steps of faith in progression as that which one is willing to believe slowly comes into alignment with what one ought to believe.

And just as Ezekiel saw flesh attach itself to the bones, it is conceivable to me that Israel will go through a time of flesh as she moves through the stages of belief, being retrained to think in terms of sin and death before coming to affirm the necessity of the cross.

As for your reference to Darby, I wish to publicly repudiate his view and distance myself from his original teaching. I don't think it is fair to suggest that I or anyone here believes the sacrificial system will negate or replace what Jesus did on the cross.

I think I fairly and logically dealt with the Amil argument against the Millennial sacrifices, namely that God thinks of them as an abomination. In a previous post I showed that had Israel repented, and no one has argued that God didn't want Israel to repent, had Israel repented the Temple would have been built and God would have instituted the sacrifices in it and he would have been pleased with it. Consequently we know that God did not object to them per se, but rather his true objection was the doubleminded, stubborn, disregard for the spiritual meaning behind them and the crass hard-heartedness of those who practiced them.

If Amil is going to argue that the sacrifices are an abomination to God, they must show what changed God's mind in the interim and that it is within God's character to change his mind, and that God lacks the foresight to pour out his spirit on all their hearts as he promised so that they might repent and bring forth the Temple and sacrifices as he wished. They must show how the very same God that induced Pharaoh to stubbornly restrict the children of Jacob from leaving Egypt, even to the point of losing Egyptian first born sons is the same God who couldn't pour out his spirit on his people -- as he said he could -- so that they might turn to him in repentance and build the temple.

Moreover Amil must answer the seeming contradiction between two logical implications of their theory. Either Amil is dispensational enough to think that the Cross was God's Plan B to remedy the willful disregard Israel had for his Plan A, which was to bring about a glorious reign of the Messiah on earth in a Temple built as his abode and a place where Levitical priests would continually sacrifice animals for the expiation of sin, or Amil must explain why Ezekiel's temple wasn't some kind of cosmic joke, as if God's offer only appeared to be genuine, knowing in advance that Israel was unable to comply.

The entire Jewish narrative teaches us a simple truth. The sole reason why the Jews were unable or unwilling to comply with the Covenant at Mt. Sinai is the lack of a spiritual birth. We learn from the testament of the New Covenant God's opinion as to the reason behind the failure of the first covenant, which was the law was not written on the hearts of the people. And we learn from his prophets God's promise to remedy this situation with a new spirit and a new heart for the people.

And so, while the Amil position seems to be that God's promise of a new Temple was contingent on repentance and reconciliation between Israel and God, they seem to forget that it was God himself who promised to give them the requisite new heart that would make repentance possible. And no doubt, had God done this for them after the return from Babylon as he seemed to promise, they would have repented at the sign of Ezekiel's divinely revealed designs for the new temple.

How could Amil dane to think that God promised to fix the pot if only the pot would fix itself first.

ScottJohnson
Sep 1st 2008, 12:22 AM
Why all the preparations for it, right down to the utensils, the clothes the priests will wear, the furniture?............... Israel is buzzing with these preparations. :confused
I take it you've been there?

dispen4ever
Sep 1st 2008, 12:28 AM
53 times thru my mentor's videos, cds, tapes, dvds, lectures, personal contact, interviews, review of the literature.

dispen4ever
Sep 1st 2008, 12:30 AM
BroRog, you write well ~~~ great form, clarity. Thanks!

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 02:02 AM
Let's not get all emotional about it but deal in reason and fact. Logically, if the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system served to evangelize the Jews in the past, it can serve the same function in the future.


No emotionalism friend just facts. You appear to be suggesting that the gospel of Christ that has brought salvation through His blood to both Jew and Gentile for the past 2000 years is somehow not sufficient in the future so God will go back to a dead law and a dead priesthood to justify Jews – kind of a two-part plan – one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Jews will be required to keep the old Mosaical system that was nailed to the cross including bloody animal sacrifices - no logic here. This is not the future presented in the New Testament. Both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ – the gospel that was to be taken to all the world until He comes again is all that is needed – no animal sacrifices are ever needed again for sin offerings.

BroRog
Sep 1st 2008, 04:02 AM
No emotionalism friend just facts. You appear to be suggesting that the gospel of Christ that has brought salvation through His blood to both Jew and Gentile for the past 2000 years is somehow not sufficient in the future so God will go back to a dead law and a dead priesthood to justify Jews – kind of a two-part plan – one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Jews will be required to keep the old Mosaical system that was nailed to the cross including bloody animal sacrifices - no logic here. This is not the future presented in the New Testament. Both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ – the gospel that was to be taken to all the world until He comes again is all that is needed – no animal sacrifices are ever needed again for sin offerings.

I am suggesting nothing of the sort, but the discussion has expanded to include a stated duration for how long Jesus' blood has been efficacious and to that I must declare that I am not so dispensational as to think that his blood was not efficacious for those who came before the cross. If one believes, as the Apostle states, that God declared Abraham to be righteous in view of his faith, and that Abraham became the father of those who believe apart from circumcision and the father of those who are not only circumcised but have faith in God, then I don't think I am so bold as to suggest that Jesus' blood was not efficacious for all believers before and after the cross.

Therefore, whether Jewish believers, who keep the law and offer the sacrifices find themselves on one side of the cross or the other, the blood of Jesus is efficacious for those who offer the sacrifices before the cross and efficacious for those who offer sacrifices after the cross, as long as they have the same faith as their father Abraham. I don't think I am so dispensational as to suggest that God required believers to offer sacrifices prior to the cross as an additional prerequisite to salvation and so I am not so dispensational as to suggest that he will add a new prerequisite to the cross in the future.

Moreover, I am not one to contradict what the Apostle said regarding those who pleased God, having believed that he existed and rewarded those who sought him. For this reason, I can only conclude that the sacrifices were never intended as a means to God's favor in and of themselves but only as an act of obedience from one who already had faith and trust in God. The sacrifices taken alone had no effect on the heart of God as he himself declared them to be a bad smell in his nose (to put it politely.) These offerings served a purpose ancillary to the purposes of salvation, as God was willing to save even those who were born prior to the event at Mt. Sinai. And to what ultimate purpose these offerings will stand in a future temple we are only beginning to speculate, but I am not so willing to council God on his plans for the sons of Aaron. I can only trust that these offerings will serve some greater good to bring God glory.

I dare say, I hope I didn't lead you to believe that the priesthood or the law were a "dead" priesthood and law as I assure you that I have not found such an idea in the scriptures. I have read the Apostle say that he, himself was "dead" with respect to the law, or that in terms of using the law against its intended purpose, namely, to seek justification there, is as a dead husband to a widow who is free to seek another husband, that is Christ. I wouldn't think of bringing a charge against the Apostle to suggest that he preached against the law, when he said somewhere that the law was good, and that being a Pharisee of Pharisees he remained blameless before the law. And as he says in his epistle to the Romans, the law speaks to those who are under it to bring them all under sin. If the Apostle brings such high praise for the Law, it would be the ultimate in arrogance for me to speak against him.

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 04:43 AM
I am suggesting nothing of the sort, but the discussion has expanded to include a stated duration for how long Jesus' blood has been efficacious and to that I must declare that I am not so dispensational as to think that his blood was not efficacious for those who came before the cross.


Well what exactly are you suggesting, Rog? You clearly stated the Levitical priesthood with its animal sacrificial system can serve some undisclosed function at some undisclosed time yet future. But the truth remains - the Levitical priesthood was rendered obsolete at the cross – Jesus Christ is our great High Priest today. It was because of the change in the priesthood that it became “necessary for a change also in the law” - Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could not have been a priest under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was fulfilled and disannulled at the cross and Christians (Jew and Greek) now live and die under the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ is not about the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Christ is not about animal sacrifices now or yet future. What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest? Please be very specific with your answer so we can see where you come from. None of this is taught in the NT. Where do you get such notions?

IPet2_9
Sep 1st 2008, 05:49 AM
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)

BroRog
Sep 1st 2008, 06:10 AM
Well what exactly are you suggesting, Rog? You clearly stated the Levitical priesthood with its animal sacrificial system can serve some undisclosed function at some undisclosed time yet future. But the truth remains - the Levitical priesthood was rendered obsolete at the cross – Jesus Christ is our great High Priest today. It was because of the change in the priesthood that it became “necessary for a change also in the law” - Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could not have been a priest under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was fulfilled and disannulled at the cross and Christians (Jew and Greek) now live and die under the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ is not about the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Christ is not about animal sacrifices now or yet future. What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest? Please be very specific with your answer so we can see where you come from. None of this is taught in the NT. Where do you get such notions?

We have now come to an examination and comparison between two priesthoods, the earthly priesthood of Aaron, and the heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ, whom the Apostle says was of the Melchizedek priesthood. He argues that had Jesus been on earth, he would not have been allowed to serve as priest since God has established the sons of Aaron as priests.

Now, when he argues that a change of law had to take place, he excepts the law concerning priests or else if the law concerning priests had changed, it would have been lawful for Jesus to be a priest on earth as well as in heaven. But as it is, the earthly priesthood remains with Aaron as the heavenly priesthood remains with Christ. Or else, if Jesus is allowed to be an earthly priest, his argument falls apart.

It's safe to say that the Old Covenant was rendered obsolete at the cross, but can we rightly conclude that the Levitical priesthood was also rendered obsolete? The apostle argues for the obsolescence of the Old Covenant based on his understanding of the need for a new covenant, the fault of the first resting in the hearts of the people, not the statutes which they guarded. The New Covenant, which they will obey, will rest solely on their having the law written on their hearts, which was not the case with the first.

But the answer to the question resides in God's pronouncement that the sons of Aaron have the priesthood in perpetuity as long as there remains a nation, and the nation will last as long as their are stars in the sky. I dare not doubt the word of God's prophet who said, "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'" For just as any attempt for anyone other than a son of Aaron to offer sacrifices was punishable by death (Numbers 3), thus was the fate of Korah and his family (Numbers 16). The God who placed such a stern punishment on those who sought to take the priesthood by force is the same God who swares by his ability to create and sustain the celestial domain that he will continue to have a son of Levi offer the burnt offerings continually at their appointed time.

You ask, "What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest?" I can say this in response. First, since God has put his reputation on the line with regard to a place for the sons of Aaron, I am not at liberty to stand in his way, and I would be a worthy servant to trust and support his decision to keep his word.

Second, the question assumes that individual Jews and Gentiles will make use of these sacrifices, when in fact, they will be part of a future arrangment God will have with the nation of Israel as a nation, not with her private citizens as individuals. I believe a careful review of the God ordained Jewish praxis of the OT will reveal that circumcision was the initiation rite of passage ceremony marking entrance of the new born son into Israel's national covenant with God, and that the sacrifices marked the continued participation and qualification to remain in covenant status. While the sacrifices remained a model of God's ultimate provision for sin and guilt, and they remained a constant reminder of sin, they also provided the means for a man to maintain his covenant status in the community.

It has been pointed out that there was no provision for the expiation of intentional sins. Those caught in intentional acts of disobedience were taken "outside the camp" and put to death. This euphemism, "outside the camp" referred to those whom the people removed from among them as a sign of their commitment to the covenant as moral purity was a distinguishing aspect of being a holy people.

For this reason, it is conceivable to me that since the sacrifices played this primary role -- the ritual maintenance of a national covenant with God -- they will play this role again in a future nation of Israel. Just as they served as a model of the real sacrifice for sins, they will remain a model of it. But primarily, they will serve to ritually express a union with God as his bride, and a new leal-love for God that mirrors his for them.

quiet dove
Sep 1st 2008, 06:38 AM
We have now come to an examination and comparison between two priesthoods, the earthly priesthood of Aaron, and the heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ, whom the Apostle says was of the Melchizedek priesthood. He argues that had Jesus been on earth, he would not have been allowed to serve as priest since God has established the sons of Aaron as priests.

Now, when he argues that a change of law had to take place, he excepts the law concerning priests or else if the law concerning priests had changed, it would have been lawful for Jesus to be a priest on earth as well as in heaven. But as it is, the earthly priesthood remains with Aaron as the heavenly priesthood remains with Christ. Or else, if Jesus is allowed to be an earthly priest, his argument falls apart.

I think what we need to seriously consider with that also is what is stated in
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Not only our wonderful future, but what we should be now, spiritually in prayer, and in service, striving to walk in the Spirit, as servants.



It's safe to say that the Old Covenant was rendered obsolete at the cross, but can we rightly conclude that the Levitical priesthood was also rendered obsolete? The apostle argues for the obsolescence of the Old Covenant based on his understanding of the need for a new covenant, the fault of the first resting in the hearts of the people, not the statutes which they guarded. The New Covenant, which they will obey, will rest solely on their having the law written on their hearts, which was not the case with the first.

But the answer to the question resides in God's pronouncement that the sons of Aaron have the priesthood in perpetuity as long as there remains a nation, and the nation will last as long as their are stars in the sky. I dare not doubt the word of God's prophet who said, "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'" For just as any attempt for anyone other than a son of Aaron to offer sacrifices was punishable by death (Numbers 3), thus was the fate of Korah and his family (Numbers 16). The God who placed such a stern punishment on those who sought to take the priesthood by force is the same God who swares by his ability to create and sustain the celestial domain that he will continue to have a son of Levi offer the burnt offerings continually at their appointed time.

You ask, "What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest?" I can say this in response. First, since God has put his reputation on the line with regard to a place for the sons of Aaron, I am not at liberty to stand in his way, and I would be a worthy servant to trust and support his decision to keep his word.

Second, the question assumes that individual Jews and Gentiles will make use of these sacrifices, when in fact, they will be part of a future arrangment God will have with the nation of Israel as a nation, not with her private citizens as individuals. I believe a careful review of the God ordained Jewish praxis of the OT will reveal that circumcision was the initiation rite of passage ceremony marking entrance of the new born son into Israel's national covenant with God, and that the sacrifices marked the continued participation and qualification to remain in covenant status. While the sacrifices remained a model of God's ultimate provision for sin and guilt, and they remained a constant reminder of sin, they also provided the means for a man to maintain his covenant status in the community.

It has been pointed out that there was no provision for the expiation of intentional sins. Those caught in intentional acts of disobedience were taken "outside the camp" and put to death. This euphemism, "outside the camp" referred to those whom the people removed from among them as a sign of their commitment to the covenant as moral purity was a distinguishing aspect of being a holy people.

For this reason, it is conceivable to me that since the sacrifices played this primary role -- the ritual maintenance of a national covenant with God -- they will play this role again in a future nation of Israel. Just as they served as a model of the real sacrifice for sins, they will remain a model of it. But primarily, they will serve to ritually express a union with God as his bride, and a new leal-love for God that mirrors his for them.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?

third hero
Sep 1st 2008, 10:18 AM
You miss the point again – you fail to see the forest for the trees. Those who understand the NT reject a future reinstituted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals for “sin offerings” with a resurrected Mosaic worship system because it goes against everything taught in the NT and it is a direct slap in the face to the “once for all time” sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Why is the NT completely silent on this most peculiar anomaly? Were Jesus Christ and all of the inspired writers clueless? :hmm:

How about saying it like this, LH. Jesus taught us that only He forgives. Jesus also taught that without His sacrifice, no flesh would be saved. Bringing back the sacrifices of the Mosaic laws, which were shadows of what God had to do in order to obtain forgiveness for us all, is not only a slap in the face of Lord Jesus, but also goes against everything that Lord Jesus stands for, both today and at the time to come.

I hope this helps a little.

valleybldr
Sep 1st 2008, 10:56 AM
How about saying it like this, LH. Jesus taught us that only He forgives. Jesus also taught that without His sacrifice, no flesh would be saved. Bringing back the sacrifices of the Mosaic laws, which were shadows of what God had to do in order to obtain forgiveness for us all, is not only a slap in the face of Lord Jesus, but also goes against everything that Lord Jesus stands for, both today and at the time to come.

I hope this helps a little. Does LH even believe in a future physical Messianic Kingdom? If so, does it operate along the lines that it is specifically described prior (primarily the Prophets) to it's King first coming? todd

Joyfulparousia
Sep 1st 2008, 11:30 AM
Losthorizon,

I'm interested on your take of Is 66:21. Is this future or past?

Secondly, is there a verse that says, "Thou shalt not ever sacrifice again"? Or is Hebrews (Romans and 1 Cor) merely interpreted that way because they speak of the perfect sacrifice in Jesus?

Joyfulparousia
Sep 1st 2008, 11:35 AM
We have now come to an examination and comparison between two priesthoods, the earthly priesthood of Aaron, and the heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ, whom the Apostle says was of the Melchizedek priesthood. He argues that had Jesus been on earth, he would not have been allowed to serve as priest since God has established the sons of Aaron as priests.

Now, when he argues that a change of law had to take place, he excepts the law concerning priests or else if the law concerning priests had changed, it would have been lawful for Jesus to be a priest on earth as well as in heaven. But as it is, the earthly priesthood remains with Aaron as the heavenly priesthood remains with Christ. Or else, if Jesus is allowed to be an earthly priest, his argument falls apart.

It's safe to say that the Old Covenant was rendered obsolete at the cross, but can we rightly conclude that the Levitical priesthood was also rendered obsolete? The apostle argues for the obsolescence of the Old Covenant based on his understanding of the need for a new covenant, the fault of the first resting in the hearts of the people, not the statutes which they guarded. The New Covenant, which they will obey, will rest solely on their having the law written on their hearts, which was not the case with the first.

But the answer to the question resides in God's pronouncement that the sons of Aaron have the priesthood in perpetuity as long as there remains a nation, and the nation will last as long as their are stars in the sky. I dare not doubt the word of God's prophet who said, "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'" For just as any attempt for anyone other than a son of Aaron to offer sacrifices was punishable by death (Numbers 3), thus was the fate of Korah and his family (Numbers 16). The God who placed such a stern punishment on those who sought to take the priesthood by force is the same God who swares by his ability to create and sustain the celestial domain that he will continue to have a son of Levi offer the burnt offerings continually at their appointed time.

You ask, "What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest?" I can say this in response. First, since God has put his reputation on the line with regard to a place for the sons of Aaron, I am not at liberty to stand in his way, and I would be a worthy servant to trust and support his decision to keep his word.

Second, the question assumes that individual Jews and Gentiles will make use of these sacrifices, when in fact, they will be part of a future arrangment God will have with the nation of Israel as a nation, not with her private citizens as individuals. I believe a careful review of the God ordained Jewish praxis of the OT will reveal that circumcision was the initiation rite of passage ceremony marking entrance of the new born son into Israel's national covenant with God, and that the sacrifices marked the continued participation and qualification to remain in covenant status. While the sacrifices remained a model of God's ultimate provision for sin and guilt, and they remained a constant reminder of sin, they also provided the means for a man to maintain his covenant status in the community.

It has been pointed out that there was no provision for the expiation of intentional sins. Those caught in intentional acts of disobedience were taken "outside the camp" and put to death. This euphemism, "outside the camp" referred to those whom the people removed from among them as a sign of their commitment to the covenant as moral purity was a distinguishing aspect of being a holy people.

For this reason, it is conceivable to me that since the sacrifices played this primary role -- the ritual maintenance of a national covenant with God -- they will play this role again in a future nation of Israel. Just as they served as a model of the real sacrifice for sins, they will remain a model of it. But primarily, they will serve to ritually express a union with God as his bride, and a new leal-love for God that mirrors his for them.

I think you're onto something here. It runs in the same vein as as a popular question I hear, "Should Gentile believers observe the feasts?" We're defintely NOT commanded NOT to.

ScottJohnson
Sep 1st 2008, 12:56 PM
Well what exactly are you suggesting, Rog? You clearly stated the Levitical priesthood with its animal sacrificial system can serve some undisclosed function at some undisclosed time yet future. But the truth remains - the Levitical priesthood was rendered obsolete at the cross – Jesus Christ is our great High Priest today. It was because of the change in the priesthood that it became “necessary for a change also in the law” - Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could not have been a priest under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was fulfilled and disannulled at the cross and Christians (Jew and Greek) now live and die under the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ is not about the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Christ is not about animal sacrifices now or yet future. What future use will Gentiles or Jews have from a resurrected Levitical priesthood with a restoration of animal sacrifices for a sin offering as you suggest? Please be very specific with your answer so we can see where you come from. None of this is taught in the NT. Where do you get such notions?
I couldn't agree with you more. I think that Paul more than addressed this issue in his letter to the Galatians.

Gal 1:6-8
(6) I wonder that you are so quickly turning back from the One having called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel,
(7) which is not another; only there are some troubling you, even determined to pervert the gospel of Christ.
(8) But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Christ's work on the cross more than served to end the yoke of the Mosaic sacrificial system. What possible reason could there ever be to revive a religious system of slavery such as this in the presence of a glorified Christ, the same one that brought an end to such a system. See Hebrews chapter 8

Heb 8:12-13
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

It's vanished! The temple and the sacrificial system has been gone for almost 2,000 years. To reinstitute it for any reason can only be seen as an abomination in view of all that Jesus Christ has done for us.

ScottJohnson
Sep 1st 2008, 01:46 PM
Losthorizon,

I'm interested on your take of Is 66:21. Is this future or past?

Hi Joyfulparousia, I realize that this wasn't addressed to me but I just couldn't resist tossing in my :2cents: . Sorry....

I think that the Isa 66:18-21 issue addresses the call to all Jews scattered throughout the nations in the first century. 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. 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. It's part of the viral effect of the gospel that had been set in motion when the Holy Spirit fell in Jerusalem

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.



Secondly, is there a verse that says, "Thou shalt not ever sacrifice again"? Or is Hebrews (Romans and 1 Cor) merely interpreted that way because they speak of the perfect sacrifice in Jesus?

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

IPet2_9
Sep 1st 2008, 03:48 PM
I'm not sure if there is anything that says don't sacrifice,

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

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 03:53 PM
To whom was the conditional promise given?

You haven't actually addressed my points/question.

Paul

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 03:54 PM
You need to go back and review the instructions for the Day of Atonement. The sins of the people were put on the goat that was taken out into the wilderness. This is not a sign of covering but of removal and forgetting.

So is this what is going to happen in the return of the Premil animal offerings?

Paul

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 03:57 PM
I understand the New Testament and I don't reject a future for the Levites, especially if God says there will be one.

But if you want to talk about the inspired apostles, remember what Paul said in Galatians 3. The purpose of the law was to bring his people to Christ. For all we know, this may be it's purpose once again.

In your scheme, the Judaic priesthood will be fully restored in the form of the Levitical sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15 and 48:11). They will function in the temple re-igniting the old covenant sacrifices and ordinances. What you forget, Zadok (who was a priest in Solomon's temple in 2 Samuel) and his sons are long dead. This priesthood no longer exists. Moreover, there is no need for the old covenant earthly priest; his office was rendered eternally redundant at Calvary. Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the restoration of the old covenant priests. I find it inconceivable that this defunct priesthood will be restored to compete with Christ in a future temple. Hebrews 7:19 tells us, “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms,“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly High Priest and requires none other. For you to expect others is a grave error and underlines the dangers of the Premillennial teaching. If Premil had its way, the new covenant would be replaced by the old in the future. This will never (or can never) happen. The one true eternal high priest has perfected the last sacrifice for sin, and now sits in heaven interceding for His elect. Thus He fulfils the two-fold duty of the priest (making atonement for sin, and interceding on the people’s behalf). Hebrews 10:19-21 says, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God."

The book of Hebrews effectively deals with, and unambiguously rebuts, many of the proposals Premil present re their supposed future millennium. The writer of the Hebrews compares subjects like the Promised Land, the kingdom, Jerusalem, the temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices in their typical Old Testament setting and shows their fulfilment at and since Messiah's earthly ministry. We see how the imperfect Old Testament shadows and types were all realised "in Christ" in the New. We see time after time how the Old Testament arrangement with its focus upon the physical temporal earthly is replaced in all these matters by the spiritual, eternal and the heavenly. The Old therefore has been superseded by the New.

Hebrews 8:6-7 explains, “now hath He [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry (than the priests that made imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." For our Premillennial brethren to desire the return of the old removed imperfect, shadow and type (which has been eternally removed "in Christ") does great injury to the cross-work. We must remind our brethren, the old covenant with its unsatisfactory imperfect animal sacrifices have now been replaced by the new covenant with its one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 8:8 confirms, "For finding fault (or imperfection) with them"or finding that they were not satisfactory, He made“a new covenant.” Christ has met / satisfied all God's demands. By His self sacrifice he became the perfect eternal sacrifice. Hebrews 7:19 declares, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did."

These Scriptures negate the Premillennial expectation for the restoration of the old covenant system to be ill-founded.

Paul

quiet dove
Sep 1st 2008, 05:15 PM
Hmmm sacrifice? definitions that go beyond killing an animal?

-4. Any thing destroyed.
When we are in Christ, is the old man not to die, and a new man born, does this not happen on a daily basis, or am I the only one who didn't turn perfect the moment I was saved?

-to express thankfulness for his benefits
When we are in Christ, are we not to forsake all and follow Him

-3. To devote with loss.


Php 2:17 Yes, and if I am being poured out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

Surely he was not actually "paying" for anyones sins?

Php 4:18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

Heb 13:15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

There is more application to "sacrifice" than killing a bull, or whatever, though I understand that sacrifice also applies to the killing of something. But that is not the only application and certainly the NT with the verses above points that out.

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

It appears that even before the Cross, sacrificing bulls and goats was in obedience to God's command and never washed away or purified the first man of sin. And were not what God wanted because He wanted the heart. Without the heart, no sacrifice means anything, whether you are killing a bull or feeding the hungry, if you are not right with God, you cannot please Him. Even those who are saved, "right with God in Christ Jesus" can jump back into the flesh, doing things in the flesh and not the Spirit, and still, unless done in the Spirit, the sacrifice is useless because we must worship God in Spirit.

Sacrifice is: worship, thankfulness, selflessness, serving; basically in a nut shell--obedience of the created, prompted by love and reverence for the Creator.

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

Isnt a bull or goat of less value than a man? How could the blood of these animals then pay for the man? It couldn't before the Cross, if done in the future, it will not after the Cross, pay for a mans soul. It's not possible that something of lesser value could pay for something with greater value.

God sent One of greater value to pay for that of lesser value, the bulls and goats never paid for or wash away sin. Pre mil, though having being accused, is not confused that it took the blood of One with greater value to be the sacrifice. The blood of that with lesser value could not pay the debt for that of greater value, before or after the Cross.

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 05:57 PM
Let's not get all emotional about it but deal in reason and fact. Logically, if the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system served to evangelize the Jews in the past, it can serve the same function in the future. Paul argues that once a man has Christ he no longer needs the tutor of the Law to guide him, which of course, is predicated on the idea that he has Christ. But if the man is in transition from paganism to Christ, obedience to God's law can be a proper intermediate step.

As we think this through to its logical end, we must bear in mind that our future Jewish brothers and sisters will not immediately jump from paganism and atheism to the affirmation of an fully formed systematic Christian theology. It has been my experience that people tend to take small steps of faith in progression as that which one is willing to believe slowly comes into alignment with what one ought to believe.

And just as Ezekiel saw flesh attach itself to the bones, it is conceivable to me that Israel will go through a time of flesh as she moves through the stages of belief, being retrained to think in terms of sin and death before coming to affirm the necessity of the cross.

As for your reference to Darby, I wish to publicly repudiate his view and distance myself from his original teaching. I don't think it is fair to suggest that I or anyone here believes the sacrificial system will negate or replace what Jesus did on the cross.

I think I fairly and logically dealt with the Amil argument against the Millennial sacrifices, namely that God thinks of them as an abomination. In a previous post I showed that had Israel repented, and no one has argued that God didn't want Israel to repent, had Israel repented the Temple would have been built and God would have instituted the sacrifices in it and he would have been pleased with it. Consequently we know that God did not object to them per se, but rather his true objection was the doubleminded, stubborn, disregard for the spiritual meaning behind them and the crass hard-heartedness of those who practiced them.

If Amil is going to argue that the sacrifices are an abomination to God, they must show what changed God's mind in the interim and that it is within God's character to change his mind, and that God lacks the foresight to pour out his spirit on all their hearts as he promised so that they might repent and bring forth the Temple and sacrifices as he wished. They must show how the very same God that induced Pharaoh to stubbornly restrict the children of Jacob from leaving Egypt, even to the point of losing Egyptian first born sons is the same God who couldn't pour out his spirit on his people -- as he said he could -- so that they might turn to him in repentance and build the temple.

Moreover Amil must answer the seeming contradiction between two logical implications of their theory. Either Amil is dispensational enough to think that the Cross was God's Plan B to remedy the willful disregard Israel had for his Plan A, which was to bring about a glorious reign of the Messiah on earth in a Temple built as his abode and a place where Levitical priests would continually sacrifice animals for the expiation of sin, or Amil must explain why Ezekiel's temple wasn't some kind of cosmic joke, as if God's offer only appeared to be genuine, knowing in advance that Israel was unable to comply.

The entire Jewish narrative teaches us a simple truth. The sole reason why the Jews were unable or unwilling to comply with the Covenant at Mt. Sinai is the lack of a spiritual birth. We learn from the testament of the New Covenant God's opinion as to the reason behind the failure of the first covenant, which was the law was not written on the hearts of the people. And we learn from his prophets God's promise to remedy this situation with a new spirit and a new heart for the people.

And so, while the Amil position seems to be that God's promise of a new Temple was contingent on repentance and reconciliation between Israel and God, they seem to forget that it was God himself who promised to give them the requisite new heart that would make repentance possible. And no doubt, had God done this for them after the return from Babylon as he seemed to promise, they would have repented at the sign of Ezekiel's divinely revealed designs for the new temple.

How could Amil dane to think that God promised to fix the pot if only the pot would fix itself first.

First, contrary to what you are intimating I don't believe your advocating of competing high priests and competing sacrifices with Christ is "logical" - quite the contrary. In fact, I don't see your logic (if you excuse the pun). :lol:

First, the new covenant was not an after thought or a plan B, it was God's plan A knowing full well the enormity of the fall and the fact man gave Satan authority he didn't previously own. So lets get this straight, the cross was preordained because of the damage of the fall.

Second, Christ entered into this sin-cursed world 2,000 years ago with the purpose of becoming the one final sacrifice for sin, taking upon Himself the penalty that belonged to man, and releasing Him from his bondage. Revelation 13:8 tells us that Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Christ was predestined to come into this world as a substitutionary sacrifice, without which no man could be saved. 1 Peter 1:19 confirms that Christ was “a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

There was a predetermined blueprint that Christ had to fulfil – He did perfectly.

Animal sacrifices

Animal sacrifices were merely an imperfect temporal covering of sin until the reality Christ arrived. But He arrived on time to rescuse mankind - OT and NT saints).

God took no pleasure in these because they were imperfect. Hebrews 10:6 & 8 tells us, "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure ... Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law"

The logical question is: why would a sovereign holy God who was satisfied with His beloeved son and only perfect sacrifice resurrection these old sacrifices that were rendered obsolete by the cross? You have yet to address this.

The old covenant was temporal and imperfect and could never satisfy God’s eternal plan for man. It has now been replaced by the new covenant with its focus upon the one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

The effectutual sacrifice would be His Son. Hebrews 7:18 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.”

As for your difficulty with God's conditional promises, you must struggle with nearly every promise in Scripture. When you read God's Word you will discover some great promises, but it is also full of warnings. Essentially it is: ‘if you obey I will bless, if you disobey I will judge’.

Paul

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 06:10 PM
So if in the Millennial God says kill a bull, then thats what will be done, has nothing to do with atoning for sin.



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

wpm
Sep 1st 2008, 06:15 PM
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
Sep 1st 2008, 06:17 PM
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
Sep 1st 2008, 06:18 PM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 12:37 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 12:39 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 01:20 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 01:24 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 01:32 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 03:01 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:51 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:27 AM
Hi Joyfulparousia, I realize that this wasn't addressed to me but I just couldn't resist tossing in my :2cents: . 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
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:37 AM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:38 AM
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. :lol:

wpm
Sep 2nd 2008, 04:10 PM
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
Sep 2nd 2008, 05:46 PM
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.

John146
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:27 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. I think that Paul more than addressed this issue in his letter to the Galatians.

Gal 1:6-8
(6) I wonder that you are so quickly turning back from the One having called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel,
(7) which is not another; only there are some troubling you, even determined to pervert the gospel of Christ.
(8) But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Christ's work on the cross more than served to end the yoke of the Mosaic sacrificial system. What possible reason could there ever be to revive a religious system of slavery such as this in the presence of a glorified Christ, the same one that brought an end to such a system. See Hebrews chapter 8

Heb 8:12-13
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

It's vanished! The temple and the sacrificial system has been gone for almost 2,000 years. To reinstitute it for any reason can only be seen as an abomination in view of all that Jesus Christ has done for us.And I couldn't agree with you any more. We are seeing a few here suggest that a different gospel will be in place during the supposed future millennium. People will no longer be saved by grace thorugh faith. They will also be required to bless Israel, whatever that means. I don't believe Galatians 1:8 is being taken seriously enough in those cases.

Regarding the old covenant sacrifices, if animal sacrifices were brought back, it would turn that passage from Hebrews into a lie because it would bring the old covenant back into effect. But to be made obsolete is to be done away with forever. Animal sacrifices will never be reinstituted because the once and for all sacrifice of Christ's shed blood on the cross is sufficient for all-time.

John146
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:33 PM
There is nowhere in Ezekiel 40-47 that it suggests that these will be memorials to look back to the cross.Exactly. So, why do people keep suggesting that is what the purpose of those supposed future sacrifices would be? That is nothing more than speculation with no scriptural support. If they would just look at the text itself, they will find no mention of them being performed as a memorial. Instead, we find this:

Ezekiel 45:17 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.

Ezekiel 46:20 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.

These offerings were to be performed in order to "make reconciliation for the house of Israel" and to "sanctify the people". There is no mention or even any hint at all of them being done as a memorial.

Eric

ScottJohnson
Sep 2nd 2008, 10:06 PM
And I couldn't agree with you any more. We are seeing a few here suggest that a different gospel will be in place during the supposed future millennium. People will no longer be saved by grace thorugh faith. They will also be required to bless Israel, whatever that means. I don't believe Galatians 1:8 is being taken seriously enough in those cases.

Regarding the old covenant sacrifices, if animal sacrifices were brought back, it would turn that passage from Hebrews into a lie because it would bring the old covenant back into effect. But to be made obsolete is to be done away with forever. Animal sacrifices will never be reinstituted because the once and for all sacrifice of Christ's shed blood on the cross is sufficient for all-time.
There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

markdrums
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:00 PM
There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

I have to agree as well!
And if you DO get a viable explanation, Please DO SHARE!
;)
:lol:

ScottJohnson
Sep 2nd 2008, 11:03 PM
I have to agree as well!
And if you DO get a viable explanation, Please DO SHARE!
;)
:lol:
You got it...... :)

wpm
Sep 3rd 2008, 04:55 AM
There is no question, a pre-millennial post second coming kingdom has more than it's share of biblical discrepancies.

There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.

It would be nice to get a viable explanation for any of these objections.

This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 4th 2008, 11:28 AM
There is the issue of salvation for the physical inhabitants of the kingdom. Are they brought to Christ by grace through faith, Mosaic riligious rights or a combination of the two.

Then there's the question of sin and death existing in the presence of a glorified Christ.



Excellent summation of questions.

Joyfulparousia
Sep 4th 2008, 11:38 AM
This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

The Amil view, in my opinion, doesn't offer much more of a clear explanation either, except to say that these verses don't have any significant meaning. And, I do appreciate and value the views and interpretations given previously on this post (Paul, Eric, Scott etc thanks). While we may not yet know the full significance of Ez. 40-44, the Lord emphasized its importance to Ezekial in 40:4

Eze 40:4 And the man said to me, Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.

I believe the significance of this passage was emphasized to anyone who would read it. IMO, the Lord wouldn't give explicit detail if this passage was simply a conditional promise that was missed by Israel.

markdrums
Sep 4th 2008, 12:39 PM
The Amil view, in my opinion, doesn't offer much more of a clear explanation either, except to say that these verses don't have any significant meaning. And, I do appreciate and value the views and interpretations given previously on this post (Paul, Eric, Scott etc thanks). While we may not yet know the full significance of Ez. 40-44, the Lord emphasized its importance to Ezekial in 40:4

Eze 40:4 And the man said to me, Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.

I believe the significance of this passage was emphasized to anyone who would read it. IMO, the Lord wouldn't give explicit detail if this passage was simply a conditional promise that was missed by Israel.


I can see what you're saying here, and I DO believe that the passage WAS significant.... but significant TO the people at the time it was written. (I'm not implying it's of no "importance" to us nowadays, but I don't think it directly pertains to us in the context it was written.)

Joyfulparousia
Sep 4th 2008, 12:46 PM
I can see what you're saying here, and I DO believe that the passage WAS significant.... but significant TO the people at the time it was written. (I'm not implying it's of no "importance" to us nowadays, but I don't think it directly pertains to us in the context it was written.)

Point understood.

Was Zechariah 12:10 written to the House of David or to Gentiles?

Joyfulparousia
Sep 4th 2008, 01:01 PM
This is exactly right and something that reveals the weakness of this school of thought. These are issues that I have never saw effectively dealt with. This thread is a case in point. When the dust settles in this discussion, the argument is largely ' I know Scripture doesn't expressly say what I am saying, but ...' This is not satisfactory.

Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river?

valleybldr
Sep 6th 2008, 03:14 PM
Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river? I'm still waiting but one can appreciate how strained these various efforts are to reconcile futuristic passages in the Prophets with the writer of Hebrews. IMO, our assumptions are faulty. todd

wpm
Sep 6th 2008, 03:41 PM
Paul when does Ez 47:1-12 happen or not happen?

Namely,

Eze 47:1, 6-7 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the house (The temple mentioned in Ez 40-46); and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the front of the house faces east; and the water was flowing from under the right side of the house, south of the altar....And he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.
When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other.

Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter it shall be.

Rev 22:1, 2 And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, going forth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Are these the same river?

Three different eras. (1) OT conditional promise. (2) NT reality. (3) Future eternal hope. :):)

Paul

valleybldr
Sep 6th 2008, 03:56 PM
Three different eras. (1) OT conditional promise. (2) NT reality. (3) Future eternal hope. :):)

Paul
It would be nice if you'd correlate the three scriptures to your three interpretations. todd

Marc B
Sep 6th 2008, 09:27 PM
Yes the commandments contained in the blood ordinances were indeed nailed to the cross. Nowhere does it say the 10 commandments were abolished.
If they were then adultery, murder, covetousness, idolatry, bearing false witness, and dishonoring your parents would be OK since the Bible does state that where there is no law there is no sin. So it begs the question. If the 10 commandments have been abolished does that mean we're off the hook if we do any of the above mentioned?

Joyfulparousia
Sep 8th 2008, 10:41 AM
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
Sep 8th 2008, 10:48 AM
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
Sep 8th 2008, 02:54 PM
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
Sep 8th 2008, 04:24 PM
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. :D

Joyfulparousia
Sep 8th 2008, 07:24 PM
That is your opinion.

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


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
Sep 10th 2008, 11:57 AM
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
Sep 10th 2008, 03:02 PM
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 " (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): “[I]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
Sep 10th 2008, 10:10 PM
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
Sep 10th 2008, 10:19 PM
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? :lol::lol::lol:

Cyberseeker
Sep 11th 2008, 12:28 AM
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
Sep 11th 2008, 03:44 AM
We have agreement. Boy, am I am compromising or are you seeing the light? :lol::lol::lol:
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
Sep 11th 2008, 05:13 AM
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
Sep 11th 2008, 07:44 AM
I for one would like to witness such a dialogue, as i think highly of you both.
Please cont'
Love you both.

Bing
Sep 14th 2008, 05:18 PM
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?! :rofl:

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
Sep 14th 2008, 07:15 PM
What, what? An Irishman quoting Churchill?! :rofl:

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? :)