Blood sacrifice during the millenium

A temple with exact dimensions is given in Ezekiel that has never been built. In fact, it is many chapters (I don't have my Bible in front of me). It has nothing to do with salvation. The purpose is to look back at the sacrifice. It has no saving value, Christ took care of that. It is sort of like the Lord's supper for the Millenium.

Anything more than that really borders on a cult known as jackvanimpeism, or still worse hallindseyism. Of course, we could go even worse and reach amillenialism.

 

I don't believe Scripture teaches that there is ever a return to the shapes and shadows of Judaism.

Colossians 2:17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Heb 8:5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 ¶ But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

It makes little sense that we would need a "memorial" to "remember" Christ in the millennium if he then, as dispensationalists claim, reigns physically with us. That would be like me looking at a picture of my wife to remember her while she physically sat next to me on the sofa

We have our remembrance of Christ now - the Lord's Supper - in the present millennium. When He returns, we won't need to remember Him, for we will be with Him forever.

 

I guess this is one of the biggest problems I have with dispensationalism. I don't know how much clearer Hebrews could be that sacrifices are over, done with, never to be used again; for the reality has come. And the argument that they are just memorials, not salvific, doesn't work too well, because they didn't save in the OT either. They were symbols of what was to come. Once the reality came, the sacrifices were done away with, forever.

But, the end of Ezekiel is where dispensationalists primarily get the restored sacrificial system from, but that seems to fly in the face of very clear NT revelation.

 

But why do we suggest that the OT is of less value than the NT? The very clear revelation of the OT is that during the building of the temple in Ezek 40-48, there will be sacrifices. The only way that contradicts Hebrews is if we misunderstand the nature and use of OT sacrifices. They were not all for sin and they did not take away sin in the final sense -- only Christ could do that. Therefore, to see a revival of the OT sacrifices for praise, worship, and theocratic purpose is perfectly consistent with what Hebrews teaches. They will be a memorial; they will not be efficacious for the covering of sin.

 

I am not suggesting that the OT is of less value than the NT but that the NT is often clearer than the OT. One of the fundamentals of a proper hermeneutic is that you must interpret the unclear and figurative passages in light of clear systematic teaching. Your statement that Ezek. 40-48 is "very clear" is something that nearly no one would agree with you on. Even when I was a dispensationalist, I would have classified that passage as one of the three most difficult in all of Scripture. All sides generally agree on that. Hebrews, on the other hand, is presenting a clear, systematic presentation of the sufficiency and completeness of Christ. This is not a NT vs. OT thing but a distinguishing between a clear passage and a vague passage. Ezekiel does not demand that the millenium be the time period. Hebrews does forbid the resurfacing of sacrifices.

And again, sacrifices of bulls and goats were never "efficacious for the covering of sin." I know you agree with that (at least I hope so), but if there were sacrifices in a millenium they would point back to Christ in the same way that the OT sacrifices pointed forward to Christ. Both would be shadows, not reality. But, Hebrews said the shadow is forever gone.

 

Mikayehu:

Well said. One of the keys of understanding Scripture is that it is progressive revelation. The NT must interpret and shed light on the Old. Just as a novel's last chapters explains its earlier plot, so does the NT explain the OT which came before it. The OT set the stage for the New. In this sense, the NT is more authoritative than the OT. Does that mean that both testaments are not the authoritative word of God? Not at all, but the OT tells us we shall not commit adultery, and the NT tells us even to lust after a woman in our heart is adultery. The OT pointed to Christ, the NT reveals Him. The NT clarifies and supercedes the Old.

 

Chris and Mikeheyu,

I understand and agree with what you are saying but I think we apply it differently. In the NT, there is nothing said that mitigates against a future temple and the reinstitution of the OT sacrifices, understood in their rightful place. IMO, it seems that you are unwittingly devaluing the OT revelation by saying that it cannot mean what it appears clearly to mean. It seems an unavoidable result that the OT Jew did not really have access to the mind of God through his revelation and that is what seems untenable to me in your position. If Ezek 40-48, describes a temple and sacrifices (which I think all agree), then it seems to not do justice to the OT speaker/writer and reader to assert 2600 years later than it means something entirely different.

I cannot see anything in the book of Hebrews and its teaching on the sacrifical system that precludes the return of sacrifices in the millennium properly practiced. I agree that Christ's sacrifice was once for all atonement for sin, but the OT sacrifices served a theocratic function within the nation as well.

I just can't see the hermeneutic used that redefines what seem to be perfectly clear passages. But alas, among friends as we are, I do not suppose that either will convince the other.

 

PreachtheWord,

Your answer was to the point and correct. I too hold to this view. I had a Messianic-Christian explain this to me.

It sure doesn't look like the Temple is going to be built in the near future, but that could change rather quickly. That should not be an excuse for any Christian not believing the truth that it will happen in God's timing.

Apparently, the Prophet Zechariah believed that a Messianic Temple would be built. [Zechariah 14:20 & Ezekiel chapters 40-46. Sabbath worship will be reinstituted [Ezekiel 46:12] as well as animal sacrifices [Ezekiel 46:11 & 12a] during the Millenimum.

Dr. Berrian

 

Pastor Larry,

I'm glad that we are on the same side on this issue; Ammillenialism destroys all of this beautiful truth.

 

Agreed. But Larry, you are not suggesting that OT Jews understood all of the types, shadows and prophecies of Christ they were given, especially not the disbelieving Jews, are you? Christ had to open the eyes of the Emmaus disciples, and even the apostles themselves, before they could understand Scripture.

Ray: we are not speaking of Amil vs Premil, but dispensational vs non-dispensational, as most amil, postmil and historic premil do not hold to millennial temple sacrifices, either.

Very true, and I respect your right to be wron... er, to differ

[ May 10, 2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Dr. Bob, what a beautiful explanation! BTW, did you see the link I posted last month about Israel finally getting a "kosher" red heifer?

 

Amen, Mikayehu. I don't think it gets any clearer than that! We have a better sacrifice whose blood speaks better things.

 

I agree with Brother Robert and Mikayehu and the scriptures couldn't speak any plainer!... Brother Glen

 

So why is the clarity of Ezekiel refused with the clarity of an unrelated passage. Again, it seems to me that you guys are devaluing the OT revelation. It seems entirely possible that Ezekiel and Hebrews can exist together without any contradiction.

 

I certainly agree with that - there is no contradiction between Ezek 40-48 and Hebrews. There cannot be, as it all is God's word. So how do we reconcile Ezek with Hebrews? With a NT christological hermeneutic which interprets the temple of Ezekiel as the Prefect NT Temple of God - Christ Jesus and all who are in Him. The following is paraphrased from Keith Mathison's book Postmillennialism:

Understood any other way is to devalue the superior authority and progressive revelation of the NT.

 

Mathison's argument however proceeds from his presuppositions, namely that there cannot be a rebuilding of the temple because there is no rebuilding of the temple. If you on the other hand presuppose the normal use of language, there is absolutely no contradiction in seeing a literal rebuilding of the temple. I do not see any NT hermeneutic that requires the interpretation of the temple of Ezekiel as anything other than what the words say. I guess the question would be, how do all teh specifics of the temple fit this spiritual or non-literal temple. You have 9 chapters of explicit descriptions with measurements, locations, etc. Mathison must do away with the words of the text.

Yet what did this text mean in the OT? I think it meant exactly what it says. However, we are back to the age old discussion about hermeneutics. As I have argued before, you use my hermeneutic for everything but Scripture.

Again, I disagree. I see nothing in the NT that precludes a precise fulfillment of Ezekiel.

 

Hi! I just wanted to say... [drum role]... I agree with Pastor Larry! (There's a first time for everything ) I get the impression that others often don't want to say they agree with the main person conducting these discussions because they don't want to be drawn into them. Well I don't want to be drawn into this one, either, but I do want to give my moral support to Pastor Larry on this subject.

As I have argued before, you use my hermeneutic for everything but Scripture.

Exactly! Well done Larry - I know we disagree about other things, but keep up the good work here

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew