Animal sacrifices

[HankD]

One thing is for sure, if God does allow Israel to make animal sacrifices which indeed never really "took away" sin (John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world) then they will still not take away sin but instead look back to the cross, He won't ask us if it's OK for Him to do it.

I still have my doubts but I'm conflicted because I believe Ezekiel 40-48 does speak of the millenial temple in Israel.

Dr. Bob makes a point I believe however, in the millenium there will be no widespread bloodshed and the trauma of death will be made very clear as these animals are slaughtered and burnt on the altar. Showing the onlookers a small glimpse of what a great death from which He saved us.

The Lord's Table is an ordinance for the church age.
I personally don't believe we will need it then because He will be with us in person.

However IMO the millenial population will probably have some sort of graphic illustration of so great salvation He has provided. Perhaps animal sacrifice will be that picture.

Anyway and FWIW, when I get back to Washington, I'll look again at the Ezekiel passages of the new temple.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

Anyway and FWIW, when I get back to Washington, I'll look again at the Ezekiel passages of the new temple.

HankD

Very good, and when you study find for us where the passage says "sin offerings" are to look back at the cross or for a rememerance or memorial. Dr. Bob was unable to do this, perhaps you can enlighten us.:love2:

Then make the case that 'sin offerings" in Eze. differ from "sin offerings" in Lev.

 

[HankD]

Very good, and when you study find for us where the passage says "sin offerings" are to look back at the cross or for a rememerance or memorial. Dr. Bob was unable to do this, perhaps you can enlighten us.:love2:

Then make the case that 'sin offerings" in Eze. differ from "sin offerings" in Lev.

It doesn't but what does it matter? it never took the sin away anyway before the cross (or after) but was an acknowledgment that one had sinned.

In this age post-calvary) we make a private acknowledgement of sin: if we confess (acknowledge) our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Presumably then fellowship is restored.

Perhaps in the millenial age sin will require an animal sacrifice as a public confession of sin. Admitedly this is my opinion (except for the Scripture quote).


HankD

 

[Soulman]

One thing is for sure, if God does allow Israel to make animal sacrifices which indeed never really "took away" sin (John the Baptist said Jesus is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world) then they will still not take away sin but instead look back to the cross, He won't ask us if it's OK for Him to do it.

I still have my doubts but I'm conflicted because I believe Ezekiel 40-48 does speak of the millenial temple in Israel.

HankD

This sure has been an interesting topic! I only recently heard of sacrifices during the millenial reign. I still don't see the full purpose of it though. I mean, Jesus is right there. The people will have the scriptures. Why arent people saved by faith in a risen saviour and the fact that the scriptures speak of it? I know the church age is over but is God going to reintroduce animal sacrifices every few thousand years to drive the point home that Jesus died for us? Or hasn't salvation always been an act of faith?

 

[HankD]

This sure has been an interesting topic! I only recently heard of sacrifices during the millenial reign. I still don't see the full purpose of it though. I mean, Jesus is right there. The people will have the scriptures. Why arent people saved by faith in a risen saviour and the fact that the scriptures speak of it? I know the church age is over but is God going to reintroduce animal sacrifices every few thousand years to drive the point home that Jesus died for us? Or hasn't salvation always been an act of faith?

No, Revelation 20 says that at the end of THE thousand years (there is only one millennium) the final revolt of fallen humanity led by the evil one will occur but it will never get off the ground as they will be consumed before they do their mischief (This is assuming the 1000 years is literal).

Then all prophetic Scripture concerning Israel and the gentile nations will have been fulfilled and the New Jerusalem will come down out of heaven to the new earth (presumably spoken of by Peter in his general epistles).
This is called “the eternal state” where sin will be totally eradicated into eternity, all it’s citizens will be resurrected and glorified in perfection. The only remnant of sin’s existence will be the scars in the glorified body of our Savior. That is all the redeemed of Adam’s race will ever need to see as a reminder, since they will be like Him - sinless.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

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

Hebrews would cause problems to any who hold to the usual details of the 1000 year Millennium doctrine.

Hebrews teaches that the priesthood has permanently passed over from the Levitical (of which Zadok is still part) to that of Melchizedek - Christ.

Hebrews teaches of the preeminence of Christ as Prophet, Priest, King. Thus there is no room for this shadowy supposed leader of the Millennium, the "prince" of Ezekiel 45.

Who could this prince possibly be? It is impossible for such a person in such a position on this side of Calvary. This prince, Ezekiel indicates, has certain promises given to his actual sons! Now who could they possibly be (assuming that the prince would be Christ)? It would, of course, be impossible. Also, we have this prince offering sin-offerings for the sins of his people - and for his own (Eze. 45:22)!

"And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering."

So who is this supposed future prince?
If he is a leader he usurps Christ - and why would Christ not be mentioned in these latter chapters of Ezekiel? I realize that many do not see Christ as being the leader here. My pastor taught that it might be David. Few, I suppose believe this nowadays, but it would have problems too. But whoever it would be would be an impossibility.

If there is sacrifice - and the language is unmistakable on this - it would now be blasphemous and idolatrous (Isaiah 66:3) as well as a return to what was once-for-all obsoleted (Heb. 8:13).

Hebrews doesn't cause me any problems. But it should cause problems to those who believe all those things about the Millennium. Either those beliefs are true (renewed burnt offering sacrifices, return to Levitical priesthood, a sinful prince officiating, return to Temple worship) or this epistle is inspired.

Both can't be true. Those who subscribe to both do not truly understand the ramifications of one or the other - or either.

Second part: Yes, I take Leviticus at face value, though I don't understand the supposed conflict you see here. Do you take Hebrews 10:4 at face value?
"It is impossible the blood of goats should take away sins"

It doesn't say "it is now impossible" or "it is now not done this way", but it is impossible, as in an impossible thing in its very nature. It is impossible for physical remedies to reach into the spiritual problem. Those sacrifices always looked to Calvary for cure.

 

[HankD]

Hebrews would cause problems to any who hold to the usual details of the 1000 year Millennium doctrine.

Hebrews teaches that the priesthood has permanently passed over from the Levitical (of which Zadok is still part) to that of Melchizedek - Christ.

Hebrews teaches of the preeminence of Christ as Prophet, Priest, King. Thus there is no room for this shadowy supposed leader of the Millennium, the "prince" of Ezekiel 45.

Who could this prince possibly be? It is impossible for such a person in such a position on this side of Calvary. This prince, Ezekiel indicates, has certain promises given to his actual sons! Now who could they possibly be (assuming that the prince would be Christ)? It would, of course, be impossible. Also, we have this prince offering sin-offerings for the sins of his people - and for his own (Eze. 45:22)!

"And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering."

So who is this supposed future prince?
If he is a leader he usurps Christ - and why would Christ not be mentioned in these latter chapters of Ezekiel? I realize that many do not see Christ as being the leader here. My pastor taught that it might be David. Few, I suppose believe this nowadays, but it would have problems too. But whoever it would be would be an impossibility.

If there is sacrifice - and the language is unmistakable on this - it would now be blasphemous and idolatrous (Isaiah 66:3) as well as a return to what was once-for-all obsoleted (Heb. 8:13).

Hebrews doesn't cause me any problems. But it should cause problems to those who believe all those things about the Millennium. Either those beliefs are true (renewed burnt offering sacrifices, return to Levitical priesthood, a sinful prince officiating, return to Temple worship) or this epistle is inspired.

Both can't be true. Those who subscribe to both do not truly understand the ramifications of one or the other - or either.

Second part: Yes, I take Leviticus at face value, though I don't understand the supposed conflict you see here. Do you take Hebrews 10:4 at face value?
"It is impossible the blood of goats should take away sins"

It doesn't say "it is now impossible" or "it is now not done this way", but it is impossible, as in an impossible thing in its very nature. It is impossible for physical remedies to reach into the spiritual problem. Those sacrifices always looked to Calvary for cure.

Again, the OT sacrifices truly did not then nor did they ever take away sin, I personally have no problem with that passage in Hebrews. By "sin offering" their purpose was a symbolic public admission of sin both at an individual and national level and a reflection (supposedly) of the heart of the one who offered it.

In the millennium there will still be sin. Obviously the "prince" would have therefore to be mortal whoever he is.

There are post calvary "sacrifices":

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.​

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.​

Hebrews 13

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.​

Philippians 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.​

1 Peter 2:5 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.​

Presumambly the OT animal sacrifices were symbols and served as a public demonstration or reflection of a changed heart and not the means by which sin was forgiven:​

Psalm 51
15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.​

So , the "sacrifice" was supposed to be a reflection or public confession of a changed heart or an act or repentance of the one who offered it then and possibly in the millennial temple.​

The acceptance of the "offering" depended on the heart of the one who made the offering.

As I said before, (this will be the third time), I am conflicted and trying to demonstrate the reasoning of those who feel that there will be "animal sacrifice" in the millennial reign.​

My own personal resolution (for the moment) is that these sacrifices of Ezekiel 40-48 are metaphorical of something similar to the present NT sacrifices made by the priesthood of 1 Peter 2:5.​

I think these two alternatives RE:Ezekiel 40-48 - either they are symbols (if literal animals) as they were in the OT or metaphors similar to the NT view of "sacrifice" is a better alternative to me than making the 1000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 a metaphor for "a long time" (or whatever folks think it means).​

HankD​

 

[saturneptune]

We should make cats the official animal of sacrifice.

 

[Soulman]

we should make cats the official animal of sacrifice.

agreed!!!!

 

[HankD]

agreed!!!!

Unicorns would be better.

HankD

 

[AnotherBaptist]

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:

Please. When I disagree with your interpretation of a passage, don't say I am ignoring it. I am fully aware of Paul's quotation from Isaiah. I am also aware of what Paul said here:

Ephesians 3:5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men,...

That would include Isaiah. Either Paul was lying or he wasn't. Both Jew and gentile lose their identity when they come into the Church:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is no Israel in the Church and there is no Church in Israel. And Paul made it clear in Romans 9-11 that God is not done with Israel yet.

 

[OldRegular]

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?

I have written this somewhere on this Forum but it bears repeating.

The promised Redeemer, the Son of God, the ‘seed of woman’ promised in Eden, is born of the virgin Mary [a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, fulfilling prophecy] to be rejected and crucified by ‘national’ Israel. Israel’s action in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was according to the eternal purpose of God: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:[Acts 2:23, KJV]. The Kingdom they mistakenly thought was exclusively for them was taken away and given to another people:

Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for certainty we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 12:32, KJV
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

1 Peter 2:9, KJV
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:

There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church.

The mission of the nation Israel in God’s purpose of redemption had been accomplished. Israel as a people are henceforth no different than the Gentiles and that will not change.

There will be no earthly millennial reign, instead when Jesus Christ returns there will be the Great white Throne Judgment the New Heavens and New Earth where the Triune God will tabernacle with his people, the Church, the called out ones redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ..

 

[HankD]

I have written this somewhere on this Forum but it bears repeating.

The promised Redeemer, the Son of God, the ‘seed of woman’ promised in Eden, is born of the virgin Mary [a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, fulfilling prophecy] to be rejected and crucified by ‘national’ Israel. Israel’s action in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was according to the eternal purpose of God: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:[Acts 2:23, KJV]. The Kingdom they mistakenly thought was exclusively for them was taken away and given to another people:

Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for certainty we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 12:32, KJV
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

1 Peter 2:9, KJV
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:

There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church.

The mission of the nation Israel in God’s purpose of redemption had been accomplished. Israel as a people are henceforth no different than the Gentiles and that will not change.

There will be no earthly millennial reign, instead when Jesus Christ returns there will be the Great white Throne Judgment the New Heavens and New Earth where the Triune God will tabernacle with his people, the Church, the called out ones redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ..

So OR here we are going down this road one more time.

Acts 1

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.​

Notice He did not deny it would happen just that it was not for them to know at the present time.

Why did they ask and what in the past led them to ask?

Luke 22

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

So they were promised a kingdom in which they would eat and drink, sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.​

Granted the concepts of allegory, metaphor, figures of speech enter into the picture.​

Every system of eschatology picks and chooses which Scripture are literal and which are figurative.​

Personally, this is why I repect and love all the various views of eschatology held by the brethren. We are all trying to put it together in what seems to each to be a reasonable explanation of "things to come" or even "things past".​

I think it was meant to be thus to fulfill certain Scripture:​

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.​

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!​

It seems to me that eschatology is meant by God to be an after-the-fact verification of the truth of God's word.​

But, I do wonder OR in light of your statement "There will be no earthly millennial reign" how you interpret this Scripture :​

Revelation 20
4 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.​

Who knows I may (somewhat unlikley though) modify my view if you give a satisfactory explanation of a presumed metaphor (or whatever).​

HankD​

 

[OldRegular]

But, I do wonder OR in light of your statement "There will be no earthly millennial reign" how you interpret this Scripture :​

Revelation 20
4 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.​

Who knows I may (somewhat unlikley though) modify my view if you give a satisfactory explanation of a presumed metaphor (or whatever).


HankD​

John said he saw souls not resurrected bodies.

 

[canadyjd]

Please. When I disagree with your interpretation of a passage, don't say I am ignoring it. I am fully aware of Paul's quotation from Isaiah.

Not to be contentious, but you addressed the Eph. 2 passage by saying that neither Paul, or anyone else, saw such unity between the commonwealth of Israel and the Gentile nations. I pointed out that in the very passage in discussion, Paul quoted Isaiah to demonstrate the very opposite of your point of view.

It is not a matter of disagreeing with my interpretation of the passage.

If you were aware of the quote from Isa., you ignored it. If you weren't aware of it, you were mistaken.

I am also aware of what Paul said here:

There are many passages from the O.T. which were not understood completely. When Paul says it was not "made known" he isn't saying the prophecy didn't exist (we have already seen that the prophecy did exist), but that people didn't understand for what it was.

There is no Israel in the Church and there is no Church in Israel. And Paul made it clear in Romans 9-11 that God is not done with Israel yet.

And Paul made clear in Romans 9-11, that "Israel" does not mean "Jewish nation", but that it means "children of the promise". The "children of the promise" are comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

peace to youraying:

 

[HankD]

John said he saw souls not resurrected bodies.

Excellent answer.

My take is that these souls were resurrected at the beginning of the 1000 years( Though it does not directly say such).

Also, there is no guarantee that the word "souls" negates the literalness of "the 1000 years".

But, it is indeed a worthy answer requiring consideration.

Thanks
HankD