Animal sacrifices

[Dr. Bob]

What verse or verses in Ezekiel 9 could possibly give you an indication of some future Millennial Temple? Perhaps you can explain what is meant by "sin offering".

I'm assuming the reference is to the NINE ENTIRE CHAPTERS of Ezekiel (ch 40-48) and not chapter 9, chapters that deal in clear detail with the New Temple, the New Priests, the New Sacrifices, etc etc.

For those who cannot find the texts dealing with these, they are right after Ezekiel 39.

Here the word of the Lord.

 

[Grasshopper]

I'm assuming the reference is to the NINE ENTIRE CHAPTERS of Ezekiel (ch 40-48) and not chapter 9, chapters that deal in clear detail with the New Temple, the New Priests, the New Sacrifices, etc etc.

For those who cannot find the texts dealing with these, they are right after Ezekiel 39.

Here the word of the Lord.

Thank you for proving my point. You can't point to one scripture that answers my questions.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Thank you for proving my point. You can't point to one scripture that answers my questions.

I give you EXACT REFERENCES but you want to slurp from a spoon. Grow up and READ EZEKIEL 40-48. Nine entire chapters rich with all the answers you really don't want to learn about. Willingly ignorant.

Examples given earlier:

Ezekiel 40:38-43 "And the chambers and the entries thereof were by the posts of the gates, where they washed the burnt offering. And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering. And at the side without, as one goeth up to the entry of the north gate, were two tables; and on the other side, which was at the porch of the gate, were two tables. Four tables were on this side, and four tables on that side, by the side of the gate; eight tables, whereupon they slew their sacrifices. And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice. And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering."

Ezekeil 43:18-27 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD. Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish. Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[Grasshopper]

I give you EXACT REFERENCES but you want to slurp from a spoon. Grow up and READ EZEKIEL 40-48. Nine entire chapters rich with all the answers you really don't want to learn about. Willingly ignorant.

Examples given earlier:

Ezekiel 40:38-43 "And the chambers and the entries thereof were by the posts of the gates, where they washed the burnt offering. And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering. And at the side without, as one goeth up to the entry of the north gate, were two tables; and on the other side, which was at the porch of the gate, were two tables. Four tables were on this side, and four tables on that side, by the side of the gate; eight tables, whereupon they slew their sacrifices. And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice. And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering."

Ezekeil 43:18-27 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD. Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish. Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

You have answered NOTHING and you know it. This is right out of Hal Lindsey and Jack VanImpe playbook. Put those books down and pick up a Bible.

I asked where in the text does it say these are to direct people born in the Millennium back to the Cross. Your answer, the above verses. You cannot provide any, not one.

I asked where it specifically states where in these passages it says these sacrifices are for a memorial or remembrence. Again, no scripture except those that say SIN OFFERING. Here's a clue, "sin offering" does not mean in rememberance. Let me show you what a remembrance looks like:

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


See anything like that in Ezekiel 40-48? Yea, me either.

Remeberance is found in Ezekiel, but not in chapters 40-48. Strange that an entire system supposedly for remembrance does not contain the very word needed to convey that thought.

Not only is remembrance not found in Ezekiel 40-48 but memorial is not found either. But the Old Testament Prophets had no problem using that word in other places:

Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Yet nowhere in Ezekiel 40-48 is "remembrance" or "memorial" found. Very strange considering according to you that is what the entire text is all about. Humorous to say the least.

Nor did you explain to all us uneducated people why there is a difference in the meaning of "sin offering" in Leviticus and "sin offering" in Ezekiel. What is the lexical reason they mean completely different things? Put that "Doctorate" to work.

One of us is indeed "willingly ignorant" we'll let the readers decide who. I just figured most like to see people be honest with what scripture says instead of just reading into it fiction and passing it off as God's Word. But some would rather have fantasy than reality, so you'll always have a preaching gig and LaHaye will always sell books.

 

[canadyjd]

These sacrifices are meant to direct the attention of people born during the Millennium back to the cross, just as in Old Testament days they looked forward to it.

You say you take these passages literally? Why are you speaking of a "millennium" reign, then? That is only 1000 years, whereas the passage speak of an eternal reign.

Ezekiel 43:7 "And 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....'"

If you take the passage literally, you must reject the "millennium" reign theory, and believe God will dwell there for all eternity. And since God is dwelling there "forever", the sacrifices spoken of must be done "forever" as well, if you want to take the passage literally.

The objective for both is the same, to cause people to realize that they’re sinners in need of a savior.

But that isn't what the passage says, as Grasshopper has pointed out.

Ezekiel 43: 25-27 "'For seven days you shall prepare daily a goat for a sin offering; also a young bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall prepared. (26)For seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purify it; so shall they consecrate it. (27) And when they have completed the days, it shall be that on the eighth day and onward, the priests shall offer you burnt offerings on the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you,' declares the the LORD GOD."

The objective is clear. The offerings make atonement for the sin, and allows God to "accept" you.

If you take Exekiel 43 literally, then there is only a repeating of the same language given to the Hebrews by Moses in the Law.

However, in Hebrews 10:3, we do see God declaring the objective of the sacrifices.

"But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year."

So the sacrifices reminded them of their sins, not of Christ who takes away sins.

And, finally, Hebrews 10:9 is very clear, and should be taken literally.

"then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do thy will,' He takes away the first in order to establish the second."

Do you take Hebrews 10:9 literally? The first (animal sacrifices year after year) has been "taken away" and the second (Christ's scracfice once for all) has been "established".

Now, to "re-establish" the first, you must undo the second. And since you take Ezk. 43 literally, you must keep doing animal sacrifices for all eternity.

With respect, you're wrong on this one, Dr. Bob.

peace to youraying:

 

[Rex77]

The OT sacrifices and feasts will be a memorial, as we keep the Lord’s table now.

And we will keep the Lord’s supper in the kingdom as well as a memorial.


We will keep Lord’s table

Mt 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

And Israel will keep passover

Lu 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I speak of the millennial reign that does not, of course, end at 100 years - it is an eternal reign!

Christ will rule on the throne of David for one thousand years (Rev 20:4 and a host of others verses "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.")

Then what? The mediatorial Kingdom of one thousand years will be given by Jesus to His Father for an eternal kingdom! (I Cor 15:23ff "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.")

So we are in the first stage of the kingdom NOW.

Then stage 2 will be the one thousand years literal reign. Then Jesus puts down the actual rule and reign until the last enemy is destroyed. It is HERE the Ezekiel 40-48 passage describes in all its beauty.

Finally stage 3 He gives the kingdom to the Father for an etenal kingdom (on a new earth, etc etc)

Believing in a one-thousand years reign of Christ on earth does not negate an eternal kingdom. Matter of fact, it is the only way to actually believe Rev 20 without mysticizing it into oblivion

 

[webdog]

I keep telling people that and that I'm more prepared than they are since I am vegetarian now. But they make fun of me and say stuff like, "It won't be heaven without steak."

So thanks, Dr. Bob.:wavey:

What do yo do with Isaiah 25:6?

 

[canadyjd]

I speak of the millennial reign that does not, of course, end at 100 years - it is an eternal reign!.......Believing in a one-thousand years reign of Christ on earth does not negate an eternal kingdom. Matter of fact, it is the only way to actually believe Rev 20 without mysticizing it into oblivion

You didn't address the Hebrews passage.

Hebrews 10:9 says that Christ takes away the first (animal sacrifices year after year) to establish the second (His once for all sacrifice for sin).

If Christ has taken away animal sacrifices and established His own once for all sacrifice, how can He re-establish animal sacrifices without making the term "once for all" mean nothing?

IOW, if Christ re-establishes animal sacrifices then scripture has testified falsely that Christ's sacrifice is "once for all", especially since the Ezk passage is clearly speaking of making sacrifice for a sin offering and atonement before God?

peace to youraying:

 

[AnotherBaptist]

...No, the BIBLE does not teach we are going back to the Law. Where did you get that in Ezekiel 40-48? Certain things (like sacrifices that far pre-dated the Law) will be instituted. God's idea, not mine.

Don't argue with me. Argue with God. You can't get much clearer than 9 chapters in Ezekiel about that future Temple and worship in the Kingdom. Hey, I'm a literalist. God said it and even if I don't understand it, I'll stand by the Word.

Getting dog-piled isn't fun is it? I think of all the previous posts, the one which read, "read Hebrews" held the most irony for me:

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

There is no passage in the entire Bible which says animal sacrifices in the OT atoned for sins. All they did was temporarily cleanse the flesh defiled by sin. Which is why they needed repeating, over and over. Comparing Christ's atoning sacrifice to animal sacrifices or insinuating that they are the same is the real error here.

Keep on keeping, Dr. Bob.

 

[Grasshopper]

Getting dog-piled isn't fun is it? I think of all the previous posts, the one which read, "read Hebrews" held the most irony for me:

He never provided one passage in Ezekiel that states the sacrifices are for a memorial or remembrance. Nor did he address why they are called "sin offerings". Perhaps you would like to try?

There is no passage in the entire Bible which says animal sacrifices in the OT atoned for sins. All they did was temporarily cleanse the flesh defiled by sin. Which is why they needed repeating, over and over. Comparing Christ's atoning sacrifice to animal sacrifices or insinuating that they are the same is the real error here.

Keep on keeping, Dr. Bob.

The OT sacrificial system was a shadow of better things to come. Dr. Bob wishes to return back to the shadow. For what reason?

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

To insinuate people will once again offer sin offerings is the real error.

 

[canadyjd]

There is no passage in the entire Bible which says animal sacrifices in the OT atoned for sins. All they did was temporarily cleanse the flesh defiled by sin. Which is why they needed repeating, over and over.

Lev. 4:13: "Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v20)...So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.

Lev. 4:22 "When a leader sins.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.26) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:27 "Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally..... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.31) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:32 "But if he brings a lamb.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.35) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Comparing Christ's atoning sacrifice to animal sacrifices or insinuating that they are the same is the real error here.

In Hebrews, scripture compares Christ's atoning sacrifice to the animal sacrifices of the O.T.: demonstrating the first has replaced the second as a once for all sacrifice.

Therefore, there is no need for animal sacrifices to continue at anytime in the future.

Welcome to the BB.

Please be prepared to have your statements examined against scripture for accuracy.

peace to youraying:

 

[AnotherBaptist]

...And so on, and so on, and so on...

In order to understand what you replied, should I use the same word atonement in the same way in the other "so on" passages such as "money atonement" for souls (Ex 30:15-16), "atonement for the house" (Lev 14:53) or "atonement" for the altar (Lev 16:18)? What you are passing as atonement for sins in the same way Jesus did is not that at all. It was merely cleansing or covering sins (or the defilement they caused; house; altar), not removing them forever.

I'll amend my statement slightly for you. There is no passage in the Bible which says that the OT animal sacrifices atoned for sins in the same manner or way Jesus Christ did. That is, for the entire world, not just Israel. For all time, not just until the next sin. For all sins, not just those which violated the Law from Sinai...and so on, and so on...

Which leads me back to the point I was trying to make. There is no "re-introduction" of the Law of Moses in the Millennial Kingdom. Animal sacrifices there are for the same sanctifying purpose as they were in the OT. That's all. That the gentiles are participating in the Feast of Booths (Zec 14:16-18) also makes this clear.

What animal sacrifices did for the OT saints and will do for the Millennial saints is being done for Church saints by the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[canadyjd]

In order to understand what you replied, should I use the same word atonement in the same way in the other "so on" passages such as "money atonement" for souls (Ex 30:15-16), "atonement for the house" (Lev 14:53) or "atonement" for the altar (Lev 16:18)? What you are passing as atonement for sins in the same way Jesus did is not that at all. It was merely cleansing or covering sins (or the defilement they caused; house; altar), not removing them forever.

I never said that scripture says they were removed forever. You, however, stated no passage of scripture says animal sacrifices atoned for sins. The passages I quoted to you demonstrated you were incorrect.

I'll amend my statement slightly for you. There is no passage in the Bible which says that the OT animal sacrifices atoned for sins in the same manner or way Jesus Christ did. That is, for the entire world, not just Israel. For all time, not just until the next sin. For all sins, not just those which violated the Law from Sinai...and so on, and so on...

And I have never said otherwise.

Which leads me back to the point I was trying to make. There is no "re-introduction" of the Law of Moses in the Millennial Kingdom. Animal sacrifices there are for the same sanctifying purpose as they were in the OT. That's all.

And my point is that you are ignoring scripture, specifically the passage in Hebrews, which says Christ takes away the first (animal sacrifices) to establish the second (His once for all sacrifice).

What animal sacrifices did for the OT saints and will do for the Millennial saints is being done for Church saints by the Word and the Holy Spirit.

What animal sacrifices did for the OT saints was a forshadowing of Christ's once for all sacrifice, which replaces and removes (takes away) the need for animal sacrifices.

There is no separate future for Israel. Any Jews that are saved (and that number might be considerable) are saved by the gospel and become part of the church.

It is clear from Eph. that both Jew and Gentile have been united in one new body, the church, to be presented to God the Father by the power of Holy Spirit.

To believe a separate future for Israel exists ignores many passages of scripture that testify to the unification of Jew and Gentile in the church.

peace to youraying:

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by AnotherBaptist
There is no passage in the entire Bible which says animal sacrifices in the OT atoned for sins. All they did was temporarily cleanse the flesh defiled by sin. Which is why they needed repeating, over and over.

Response by canadyjd
Lev. 4:13: "Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v20)...So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.

Lev. 4:22 "When a leader sins.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.26) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:27 "Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally..... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.31) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven."

Lev. 4:32 "But if he brings a lamb.... (followed by details on how to offer the sacrifice)..... (v.35) Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven."

And so on, and so on, and so on

Frankly, recalling what Hebrews tells us, I had no problem with AnotherBaptist's remarks above. The blood of animals was obviously not sufficient to take away sin else the death of Jesus Christ was needless. I like what Hebrews says about animal sacrifice:

Hebrews 10:1-4
1. For 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.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Perhaps AnotherBaptist could have phrased his initial remark differently.

It is unfortunate that dispensationalists don't spend a lot of time in Hebrews. That book alone is sufficient to show the error of dispensationalism.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

...To believe a separate future for Israel exists ignores many passages of scripture that testify to the unification of Jew and Gentile in the church.

peace to youraying:

On the contrary. It recognizes that unification as unique and a mystery that was not part of the OT prophets' writings/understanding (as Paul made very plain) while recognizing that Israel is still under the Law and God has yet to fulfill all His Promises to them. The Jew in the Church is no longer a Jew. That leaves many others who still are. Paul can't be describing both groups as one when he says they "are enemies of the Gospel", now can he?

 

[asterisktom]

It is unfortunate that dispensationalists don't spend a lot of time in Hebrews. That book alone is sufficient to show the error of dispensationalism.

I've wondered about that myself. Maybe it is the very title that makes them think it is not really for them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Don't argue with me. Argue with God.

Now that is the answer of a man who lost a debate. lol

 

[canadyjd]

On the contrary. It recognizes that unification as unique and a mystery that was not part of the OT prophets' writings/understanding (as Paul made very plain) while recognizing that Israel is still under the Law and God has yet to fulfill all His Promises to them. The Jew in the Church is no longer a Jew. That leaves many others who still are. Paul can't be describing both groups as one when he says they "are enemies of the Gospel", now can he?

On the contrary, Eph. 2 does not say that "Jews that are in the church are longer Jews" and that Jews that are not part of the church are still Jews.

It says that one result of Jesus's work on the cross was to unite the "commonwealth of Israel" and "Gentiles" (any nation other than Israel) into "one new man" to have access to God the Father through the power of Holy Spirit.

As far as your statement that this unity was not part of the OT prophecy, you are ignoring Paul's reference to Isa. 57, "And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near."

So Paul "made very plain" that the unity he is speaking of in Eph. 2 is supported by O.T. prophecy from Isa. 57.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

I've wondered about that myself. Maybe it is the very title that makes them think it is not really for them.

What about Hebrews causes problems? Do you still take Leviticus at face value in your life as well, btw?