An end to sacrifices

[8thdaypriest]

There are thousands of Hebrew Roots believers who think that the system of animal sacrifices has not yet come to an end. 

If a Temple is rebuilt on the Mount, they believe they should go up there to present an animal for sacrifice. 

 

They point to Ezekiel's Temple with all the implements and tables for preparation of animal sacrifices, and the commands for presentation of such sacrifices.

They say that Ezekiel's Temple will be the Messianic Temple during the millennium.  They point out that a great resurrection of "the whole house of Israel" takes place before Ezekiel's Temple is set up.

 

They point to Acts, where Paul goes up the Temple to pay for sacrifices presented by men who were completing vows.  They point to the verse which says that Paul had shaved his hair prior to reaching Jerusalem (showing that he had taken a Nazarite vow, which required a sacrifice to complete).  And James tells Paul that the new converts to Christ are "all zealous for the law".  So  the HR people say that the first disciples were offering animal sacrifices at the Temple, and had received no instruction to discontinue the practice. 

 

They believe that Christ became our High Priest in heaven, but say that if He were on earth, He would NOT be a priest (Heb 8:4).

They believe in a parallel system, wherein only descendants of Aaron can be priests in a Temple on earth. 

 

They say that the system of animal sacrifice will continue, as a teaching tool for those who do not yet know the LORD.

 

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR VIEW, but I am looking for Scriptural PROOFS that the system of animal sacrifices has been set aside by the LORD, and has been replaced by the "one true" offering - that being Christ. 

 

I realize that it makes logical sense to us, that if the real thing has come, you don't need the model any longer.  But where is this stated in Scripture.

 

HR people say that a curse will come upon anyone who removes any part of the law.  I had one friend tell me that I was teaching antichrist doctrine because I say that we do not need to offer animal sacrifices any longer. 

 

I will list some of my own thoughts on this:

 

1.  "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them, but a body You have prepared for me"  (Psa. 40:6, Heb 10:5&8)

 

2.  The Tabernacle and the priesthood were only a "copy" of the "pattern" (Exo. 25:40, Heb. 8:5).

     "It  was symbolic for the present time" (Heb 9:9)

 

     "Therefore let no one judge you in meat (offerings) or drink (offerings), or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."  (Col. 2:16-17).

 

They agree with this, but say they have no permission (Scripturally speaking) to discontinue animal sacrifices, and should resume them if a Temple is rebuilt.

I personally believe that a Temple WILL be rebuilt on the Mount at Jerusalem, before the SC.  The abomination of desolation will stand there. 

They don't need a whole building.  A tent, an alter, and dedicated (cleansed) ground is all that is necessary.

The 3rd Temple Institute has everything ready.  They are just waiting for access, and a completely "red" heifer.

 

3. 1 Corinthians 13:10 "But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away" (NKJ).

They agree with this also, but say that the "perfect" has NOT YET come, so we must continue with the symbolic.

 

4.  "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" (Gal 3:24). 

 

They point out that this would include the Ten Commandments.  There will be no ARK in the promised land, when the restoration is complete (Jer 3:16), because the Law will be written on the heart, but they point out that day has NOT YET come - so both the 10 Commandments AND the Temple/Priesthood/Sacrifices should be continued until the LORD specifically commands an end to them.  

 

5.  "The priesthood (It doesn't say the high priesthood.) being changed"

If you "change" the priesthood, then there is no place to take a sacrifice, because every sacrifice had to be brought to a descendant of Aaron, at the Temple on the Mount (Deut 12:11).  I think this one is the MOST convincing.

 

I am trying to reach Hebrew Roots believers.  So I'd appreciate any insights - from Scriptures.

 

Thank you in advance.

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[JoeMo]

I don't want to quote the whole thing, but Hebrews chapters 7- 11 explains things well.  See especially 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, and 10:1-10

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

I cannot use Daniel 9:27 to change the mind of any Hebrew Roots believer.  They say that the "he" - the one who confirms a covenant with many for one week, and then causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease - is the Antichrist, NOT Christ.  I tend to agree with them. The angel did tell Daniel that he had come to show him what would happen to his people "in the latter days" (Dan 10:14).

 

9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (the desolator).

 

If the early apostles believed that this prophecy applied to their time,

and that Jesus death had brought the sacrificial system to an end, 

then why would James have told Paul that the believers in Jerusalem were "all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20),  

AND he told Paul to go to the Temple and pay for the sacrifices for four men to complete their Nazarite vows  (See Acts Cpt 21).

All of this to PROVE that he was NOT teaching against the Temple, sacrifices, and Levite priesthood, or circumcision for Jews.

 

It is worth noting that Paul had all his hair cut off several weeks before reaching Jerusalem because he had "taken a vow".  The only vow that requires cutting off all ones hair, is the Nazarite Vow, which also requires ceremonial cleansing with sacrifices at the end of the vow period.  (Acts 18:18).

 

Seems like James at least didn't get the message that the sacrificial system was obsolete and should be abandoned by Jews. 

James does say that Gentile believers were NOT expected to observe these things. 

So James is maintaining a difference for Jews, and is teaching that Jews should continue all of "the law". 

 

I think it possible that Paul was being  "a Jew" for the sake of Jews (I Cor 9:20).   He had not been back to Jerusalem for some 14 years.

I think it possible that Paul's visit to the Temple for sacrifices was a mistake.  Like striking the rock twice??

It seems obvious that either there IS a difference between Jews and Gentile converts, concerning what behavior was expected by the LORD,

OR Paul made a mistake and his actions left a confusing message.

His visit caused a riot, and Paul was arrested and was never free again to travel preaching the gospel.

The LORD allowed this to happen.

 

I had never read carefully Acts cpt 21, until I began fellowshipping with Hebrew Roots believers.

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpiont

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

Rachel,

Daniel 9:25 to 27 when and why the temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, being nailed to the cross along with the other ceremonial laws

 

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

Decree to restore and rebuild jjerusalem issued in 457 BC. Jesus annointed in 27 AD  which was 69 weeks (483 prophetic days) or 483 .years after 457 BC

 

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 

During the last of the 70 weeks of Daniel beginning in 27 AD Jesus would preach and be crucified/

 

 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In the midst of the last week of the 70 weeks He would be crucified (3 and 1/2 years after His baptism - 31 AD.) causing the sacrifices and olblations to end. This wassdemonstrated by the temple curtain being rent , exposing the most holy place to view by all.

Exactly

[Sojourner]

I have discussed a number of times with Church of God people that keep the feasts how they do so when animal sacrifice and the levitical priesthood are both required to do the actual feast. There is never an answer except to try and build straw man arguements about the passover.

Yet the fact remains that you cannot do animal sacrifice without both the Levitical Priesthood and the Temple. There is no animal sacrifice in the heavenly kingdom because there is not death there only new life.

[8thdaypriest]

I never say that I "keep" the Feasts, or "observe" them.  The word translated "observe" is a very legalistic term.  If you follow it back to the Hebrew using the Septuagint.  It means to watch carefully. 

 

I do believe it is a good thing to remember the Feasts, at the time when they were originally "kept".  Of course - we today cannot even know those times for certain.  There is no longer a priesthood at the Temple in Jerusalem, to call out the New Moons. 

 

We gather together for a remembrance meal, and eat unleavened bread during Passover week.  Friends come from far.
We talk about the Feasts and what they meant, and why they were ordained.  We talk about the fulfillment in Christ. 

We fast on Yom Kippur and thank the LORD for His final perfect atonement.  

 

I'm convicted that Christmas and Easter are pagan in origin, and that these "worldly" feasts have brought in much confusion.  They are baptized paganism, like Sunday sacredness.

 

I personally do not think that the prophecy of Isa. 66:23 refers ONLY to the 7th Day Sabbath.  The New Moon is also named.  And there were Sabbaths besides the weekly 7th day.

 

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. (NKJ)

 

The weekly Sabbath was just one of the "holy convocations" which the LORD called "My Feasts" (Lev. 23:2). 

"No customary work" was to be one on the 1st and last day of Unleavened Bread, on Pentecost, on the Feast of Trumpets, on the 1st day of the Feast of Tabernacles.  On the 8th day following the Feast of Trumpets.  "No manner of work" was to be done on Yom Kippur. 

 

Learning the true meaning of the Feasts is something that I did not receive from Adventism.  The Feasts were pretty much ignored. 

 

Zechariah 14:16 to 21 strongly suggests to me that the redeemed ("those who are left") WILL go up to Jerusalem for the Feasts in the coming kingdom of Messiah. 

 

Zechariah 14:16 "And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."  (Also see Obadiah 17, Zech 3:8, Esa 66:19, Ezek 38:8.)

 

I do NOT believe that animal sacrifices will then be offered.  The Feasts will be kept in a new way centered on Christ.

 

Respectfully

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

My personal take on the Daniel 9 prophecy, is that the Temple Mount along with the City of Jerusalem will be "given to the nations". 

It will be internationalized, in a vain effort to bring peace.  The world is becoming sick of war brought on by Muslim extremists. 

The UN, possibly appointing the Vatican to oversee the process, will appoint the Temple a "house of prayer for all peoples".

This AFTER the Jews have exclusive control for 3.5 years, after rebuilding, after a horrible destruction of Muslim doing.

 

The Muslims will be allowed to worship on Friday, the Jews on Sabbath, and the Christians on Sunday. 

It won't work of course, because both Muslims and Jews will regard the Temple Mount as defiled by the other.

 

Anyway - per our discussion on the "end of sacrifice",  I appreciate all of your comments.

 Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

I think that Hebrews has the strongest arguments, especially the "change" of the priesthood. 

You can see why a few of the HR teachers say that the Book of Hebrews does not belong to the Scriptures.

Most reject their view, but cling to the idea of a parallel (exclusively Levite) priesthood on earth.

 

Galatians 4:9-10 is also very strong, considering that Paul is talking to those who want to be "justified by law-keeping" (5:4).

"You observe days and months and seasons and years."  Paul is speaking here of the Feasts and Sabbatical years.

"You turn again to "weak and beggarly elements to which you desire again to be in bondage" (4:9-10) just as they were in bondage to pagan rituals and sacrifices.

He includes physical circumcision in that "bondage" of justification by law-keeping (5:4).

 

Which is WHY Paul wrote "Therefore let no one judge you in meat (offerings) or drink (offerings) or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance of of Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17).   

 

I believe we can commemorate the Feasts.  We remember them - centered on Christ - without the prophetic animal sacrifices. 

And I let no one judge me regarding the WAY in which I remember the Feasts. 

 

Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his two books on the Feasts, also suggests strongly that a remembrance of the Feasts at their times would be a profitable practice.

People NEED times to come together to remember, and to celebrate - in a God centered way.  The Feasts provide this structure. 

Camp Meeting was - I believe - a substitute for Sakkot (Tabernacles). 

 

Most do not realize that the elements of the sacrifice - the animal, the grain, the wine, the salt - were the elements of a covenant meal. 

They were to renew their covenant with Yahweh.

We celebrate the Communion (with the foot washing) for the same reason.  (We do it only once a year at my home, on the eve of 15 Nissan.  We are expecting 8 people this year.) 

I never did understand how Adventists came up with 4 times a year.

 

It is interesting to me that the Adventists kept a few things that were NOT in the Ten Commandments - like dietary laws, and tithe, but rejected any regard for the Feast Days. 

 

Respectfully,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[phkrause]

I never did understand how Adventists came up with 4 times a year.

I always wondered the same. But I believe in the Gospels Jesus tells us to do this as often as we can?? So I'm guessing that since we have 4 quarters, they decided to do it after each one, instead of each week, or every other week, or once a month, or every other month!!

[Ted Oplinger]

Just a point or two, Rachel...

 

 

They point to Ezekiel's Temple with all the implements and tables for preparation of animal sacrifices, and the commands for presentation of such sacrifices.

They say that Ezekiel's Temple will be the Messianic Temple during the millennium.  They point out that a great resurrection of "the whole house of Israel" takes place before Ezekiel's Temple is set up.

 

People say this about Ezekiel's Temple. I see Scriptures portraying Ezekiel's Temple quite another way. Originally, it was to to be the last in the Temple progressions on earth until Christ's second coming, when it would be replaced by the New Jerusalem. Allow me to explain why.

 

There is a demonstrated progression and unfolding of where God's people met with God for atonement.

 

First was the altar of burnt offering, given for those who came to God in repentance (Genesis 3:21; 4:4, 5). The sinner presented a firstling of the flock (aka, a lamb) on an altar, proscribed by God. This was in place from Adam to Moses, proscribed by God at the first and carried on as custom through the centuries. Water was not included with this until Elijah, having to take Israel back to the basic sacrifice to allow God to reveal Himself, poured 12 large pitchers of water upon the sacrifice. The lamb pointed forward to the substitutionary sacrifice of the coming Redeemer - a promise made in Genesis 3:15, and repeated in Genesis 12:3 and 48:9, 10.

 

With Moses, God ushered a great unfolding of the plan of salvation. The sinner still presented his sacrifice and slew it at the altar of burnt offering. The sanctuary expanded from being just the immediate area around the altar, to a dwelling having a courtyard 75' x 150' and a two-compartment tent of meeting. Water is present before the door to the tent of meeting, as water provided by God to wash before meeting Him. The repentant sinner could find atonement here, in a place prepared according to plans given by God (Exodus 25:9) for the penitent people of God. This lasted from Moses to Solomon. Though the animal sacrifice system expanded to include different animals/birds for economic/sin circumstances, they all still pointed forward to the coming Redeemer. 

 

Solomon's Temple greatly expanded the sanctuary symbols - a bigger site with a larger building (the Temple itself was nearly as large as the previous one's courtyard: 30' x 90' - 1 Kings 6:2), construction of wood and stone instead of fabric, a much larger altar of burnt offering, and a much larger laver (large enough for people to bath in comfortably), with several portable lavers to supplement the services. Again, the repentant sinner could meet with God here, and find atonement for sin. Again, it was built according to plans given by God to His servants for the penitent people of God (1 Kings 6:38; 1 Chronicles 28:11, 12; 19). This sanctuary plan lasted until Judah was destroyed, the Temple along with it, and God's people were led captive into Babylon for rebellion and impenitence.

 

There are three things of note with each step: 1) the plans were given by God to man, for the repentant sinner to approach God; 2) the presence of water expanded with each plan; and 3) each was bigger and more inclusive than the previous steps. These are to be kept in mind when looking at the restoration of Judah and the new Temple. Further, both of the previous Sanctuaries were dedicated as proscribed by sacrifices ordained by God. Both of these sanctuaries contained the Ark of the Covenant.

 

The books of Ezra and Haggai records the building of the next Temple. God has to prod the people to do this (Haggai 1:4-11). While Zerrubabel and his small band hastened to obey, the new temple was in no ways larger or better than the previous (Haggai 2:3), much to the dismay of the old men who remembered the previous Temple (Ezra 3:12). This temple was in no way built according to plans given by God for His penitent people to approach Him for atonement. It soon fell into great disrepair, as infighting between Sadducee and Pharisee - and constant warfare between the Selucids and Ptolomids without, brought the true worship of God to naught in the region. Herod thought to embellish the Temple in the eyes of man, but this, also, was not according to God's Word. Lastly, Zerrubabel's Temple was not dedicated to God in a sacrificial manner proscribed by God. The Ark of the Covenant was never returned. In the end, Herod's Temple became eye candy as a source of national pride, but represented nothing of God's plan for the penitent sinner to approach Him by.

 

Were there plans for a Temple for the post-Exile time? Yes, there were. Those were the plans given by God to Ezekiel while God's people were in exile in Babylon in Ezekiel 40:4 and 43:10, 11. This Temple, when laid out and built, had an outer courtyard roughly a mile square, walled in with a gate centrally located on each side (both previous Sanctuaries were gated only on the east side). The inner courtyard was 150 feet square. The laver was replaced by a river flowing from the Most Holy Place (where the Mercy Seat throne of God resides) out through the courtyard (Ezekiel 47). The dedicatory sacrifices were proscribed (Ezekiel 43:18-27). The rebuilt city of Jerusalem was to be 7500' wide (~1.5 miles wide) and 37,500" long (~7 miles). The Temple building's size was reduced.The uncircumcised in heart was not to come there (Ezekiel 44:9). It is thought by some God would have had the Ark of the Covenant returned to its rightful place in the Most Holy Place.

 

 

It was to be built as planned only on one condition: Ezekiel 43:10, 11. Israel as a nation and a people must come to God in penitence, ashamed for their sins before God. This agrees with the conditions of the time God portioned for the Jews in Daniel 9:24 - finishing their transgression and making and end to their sin as a nation. The major question is: Did Israel/Judah ever come to God in such a state when released by God from exile?

 

As recorded in Haggai, though,this was hardly the attitude of Israel on return. The confession of the people in Nehemiah 9 took place only AFTER the new Temple was built. It was a formal ritual, rather than a national heart-rending. There was no sense of national/individual shame nor of faith in proceeding on God's Word before this...only complaining about their difficulties, and building their own lives, careers, and houses. Their experience with God could be summed up in the passage of Nehemiah 13:15-21 - even though the Law was read out in their hearing (Nehemiah 8), it wasn't written on their hearts as it God declared it should be (Deuteronomy 30:1-6). They remained just as wayward after the Exile as they were before it. God's Law meant something to them only as it was an enforced requirement, not as a love response.

 

In a word - no, there was never any written occurrence of national heart-rending. If it had happened, it would have been written and retained in the Word of God as being so. Instead, just the opposite is recorded.

 

Hence the reason Ezekiel's Temple was never built...and never will be. It was the Temple Christ was to enter, through its east gate, with great joy, fanfare, and celebration. Christ instead had to enter through Herod's Temples only gate - its east gate, and that with opposition, rebuke, and hostility.

 

Notice that each planned temple layout gets bigger, becomes more square. Notice the presence of water increases, until it flows as a river from the Most Holy Place to the courts and city beyond. Ezekiel's temple prefigures what we see in Revelation 21:10-27 for the penitent people of God. No Temple exists there, because atonement is no longer needed to approach God. God dwells with His people in person. In Revelation 22:1, the River of Life flows from the Throne of God, just as prefigured by what God intended through Ezekiel's Temple. 

 

New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven to reside on earth. It now resides in heaven, and is thought by many to be the residing place of the Redeemed of God during the Millenium. 

 

As for Ezekiel's Temple being built and serviced with animal sacrifices during the Millenium...as the Word of God clearly states our atonement is not with the blood of bulls and goats, but by the precious blood of Jesus. Animal sacrifices stopped being necessary in the plan of redemption as a means to approach God when Christ died on the Cross. Regardless of what one believes of the Millenium, any real worshippers of God will have gotten this basic message of the Gospel by that time (Acts 4:10-12; Philippians  2:10, 11), as most scholars place the Tribulation as occurring right before the Millenium.

 

It is clear from the plans that Ezekiel's temple was to be built while people uncircumcised in heart (aka, unbelievers) still populate this earth, and sinners still need atonement. During the Millenium, however, no sinners are alive - only the glorified Redeemed (Revelation 20:4-6) are alive of the human race. Atonement no longer needs to be made, for it already has been made by this time (Revelation 21:12).

 

The plans for that are retained in God's Word through Ezekiel as a reminder of what God intended for Israel, versus the reality of what Israel gave back to God. Today's Jew still has to confront the fact their forefathers rejected the Promised Messiah, and receive atonement as it is in Christ, just like we do. As Paul writes - they can be easily be grafted in again should they depart from their unbelief (Romans 11:23, 24).

 

This is my understanding gleaned over the years of studying the plan of redemption as God has unfolded it in His Word. 

 

Blessings,

[Sojourner]

So Rachel, Do you keep the feast of Hannakah (festival of lights) that Jesus is recorded as participating in - John 10:22? 

[8thdaypriest]

So Rachel, Do you keep the feast of Hannakah (festival of lights) that Jesus is recorded as participating in - John 10:22? 

 

No - my husband and I do not commemorate Hannakah.  While it is true that Jesus attended this Festival, and used the lights of Hannakah to call attention to Himself as "the light of the world", I do not include this Festival with those specifically commanded by the LORD from Sinai.  The "Feasts of the LORD" were prophecy, telling of the LORD's plan for our salvation and restoration.  

 

Hannakah celebrates a miracle story.  That is all.  It is not one of the prophetic Feasts. 

[Ron Amnsn]

So Rachel, Do you keep the feast of Hannakah (festival of lights) that Jesus is recorded as participating in - John 10:22? 

 

The word Hanukkah means "dedication".  It is often celebrated today as a "festival of lights" commemorating the story (or legend) of the Temple menorah burning for eight days on a one-day supply of oil.

 

More importantly, it commemorates the re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem, an event that was necessary for the success of our redemption by Jesus.  Two centuries before Jesus came the Greeks had overrun Israel, outlawed circumcision and the religion of the Old Testament, and converted God's Temple into a place of pagan worship. 

 

If those conditions had prevailed until Jesus was born in Bethlehem, at the time the 490-year prophecy of Daniel was to be fulfilled, how would God have found righteous parents to train up John the Baptist and Jesus?  How could Mary and Joseph have offered the necessary sacrifice after the birth of Jesus? How would Jesus have grown up righteously living according to God's Word?  How would anyone know that Jesus died at Passover, if Passover hadn't been celebrated for two centuries?

 

The successful battles of the Maccabees against the Greeks and the re-dedication of the Temple can be remembered and celebrated at Hanukkah by all the followers of Jesus.

[8thdaypriest]

Ted,

 

I did not mean to go into my beliefs concerning the 8th millennium, but since you have explained your views concerning the Temple shown to Ezekiel, I will go ahead to explain mine.

 

I believe that the sacrifice of animals IS OBSOLETE.   I will try to explain my understanding of Ezekiel's Temple vision.  I do NOT explain it away as something that "would have been" IF Israel had truly repented in abject humility. 

 

This Temple was shown to Ezekiel in a vision from God.  It was the "word of the LORD".  The LORD's word does NOT return to Him void.

 

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth - it will not return to me unfulfilled; but it will accomplish what I intend, and cause to succeed what I sent it to do." (CJB)

 

Believing this - I had to look for a way to "accomplish" what was shown to Ezekiel.

 

Ezekiel 28:25-26  “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob. And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely.’”

 

This gathering and return to "their own land" was NOT accomplished under Zerrubabel.   The return from Babylon was tiny compared to the coming "greater Exodus" described also by Jeremiah.

 

Ezekiel 36 talks about how the LORD will "take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.  THEN I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.  I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" ... v.33 "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt."  v.36 "THEN the nations which are left all around you shall know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted what was desolate.  I the LORD have spoken it and I will do it."  SO THERE ARE THE NATIONS,  who will see all of this.  Those "nations" are NOT Israel.  They are NOT YET redeemed. 

 

Ezekiel Cpt 37 describes a great resurrection of "the whole house of Israel" (v11).  It is AFTER this resurrection that Israel is returned to the land.

 

37:14  "I will put My Spirit in you and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land.  THEN you shall know that I, the LORD have spoken it and performed it, says the LORD." 

 

37:15-27  Describes how Israel and Judah will be joined together again, under ONE KING.  That King of course will be Messiah.  v.27-28  "My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  The nations also will know that I, the LORD, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." 

THAT "sanctuary" will be Ezekiel's Temple.  And "the nations" will see this. 

 

Messianic and HRoots teachers (from what I have heard) place Ezekiel's Temple in the 7th millennium, and believe that Messiah will reign on the earth during THAT millennium.  

I place Ezekiel's Temple in the 8th millennium, and believe that Messiah will reign on the earth during the 8th millennium.  

 

I believe that the earth WILL be completely "without form and void" after the "great day of the LORD" and will remain so for 1000 years (the 7th millennium).

I believe that the redeemed people of God (called Israel) will spend the 7th millennium in "the Father's house", where they will be prepared to serve as "priests of God and of Christ".

I believe that at the end of the 7th millennium, the redeemed of Israel will be "returned to the land" promised to Abraham. 

They will rebuild and restore.  They will plant and harvest. 

The "rest of the dead" will be resurrected.  I do NOT BELIEVE that "the rest of the dead" are the condemned wicked from the 6000 years since the fall of Adam.

I believe "the rest of the dead" will be those who lived and died in ignorance.  The have not yet chosen "whom they will serve". 

Redeemed Israel will serve as a priesthood to govern and educate "the rest of the dead" in the things of God. 

Some will chose God.  Some will rebel (at Gog-Magog).

 

With THAT understanding of where I'm coming from:

 

Ezekiel was shown a vision.  We all understand - especially from visions shown to Daniel and to John of Revelation, that visions can contain symbolism.  

The entire Tabernacle was symbolic.   It was a copy of "the true Tabernacle which is heaven itself".  Right?

The Lamb (especially the sin offering) represented Jesus (Yeshua).

I believe the "river" shown to Ezekiel represents the Spirit of God, which will flow over the earth.  Where the river flows, everything comes to life - including "the rest of the dead".

 

In the chapters describing the Temple, the "Prince" will prepare the sacrifice - which means "the prince" is a priest also. 

The Prince is "the Son of David" who will reign over combined Judah/Israel. 

So "the prince", and "the priest" and "the sacrifice" - all three - ARE CHRIST. 

 

But redeemed Israel will serve as priests under their High Priest (Christ).  Here is Isaiah's description of the priests.

 

Isaiah 61:4-9  “And they shall rebuild the old ruins.  They shall raise up the former desolations. And they shall repair the ruined cities, the desolations of many generations.  Strangers [non-Israelites] shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the foreigner [non-Israelite] shall be your plowmen and your vine dressers.  But you shall be named the Priests of the LORD.  Men shall call you the Servants of our God.  You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast.  Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, and instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.  Therefore in their land they shall possess double [the inheritance of the firstborn].”  “Everlasting joy shall be theirs.  For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, and will make with them an everlasting covenant.  Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people.  All who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed.”

 

The people raised at the 8th millennium, will need to learn of God.  That is the purpose of the Temple shown to Ezekiel.

 

    Ezekiel presents the resurrection and return of the whole house of Israel to the land.  
    THEN - in this context - he is shown a Temple with tables and implements for sacrifice.  
    We have been sidetracked by “arguments about the law” and we have failed to hear what the law is telling us.  The law was prophecy!!

    In this vision given to Ezekiel, each animal sacrificed is Yeshua, who will offer His own blood for another man or woman, clan or village, or nation. Yeshua is “the priest” who makes the atonement.  And Yeshua is the “prince”.  The ministration of the blood of Messiah WILL CONTINUE after redeemed Israel has been returned to “the land.”  THIS is the message!!!
        
        Ezekiel “saw” animal sacrifices.  We “see” Christ, presenting His own blood on behalf of those who come to the Father at The 8th Day.  This ministry of His blood will continue until the last repentant sinner is washed and healed - to sin no more.  

 

The ministration of the blood of Messiah will continue AFTER redeemed Israel has been "returned to the land".  THAT is the message. 

 

IT WASN’T TIME    

        The vision was given to Ezekiel during the time of the Babylonian captivity.  The Israelites would indeed return to the land at the end of the 70 years. They would rebuild The City and the Temple, but this return was only a type of THE FUTURE RETURN of the “whole house of Israel” to “the land.”
 
        If Ezekiel had been shown the future Temple WITHOUT the animal sacrifices, the returning Jews would have assumed that this system was no longer necessary, and it would have been discontinued.  But it was not yet time.  THE True Lamb had not yet been offered.  The True Priest had not yet been consecrated. 

 

This is a very short synopsis. 

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

 

[8thdaypriest]

Concerning Ezekiel 44:9

 

Ezekiel 44:9 `Thus says the Lord GOD: "No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel. (NKJ).

 

This verse is right in the description of Ezekiel's Temple and the City adjacent. 

 

First:  The verse would imply that "foreigners" would be present.  Foreigners are NOT Israelites.  So there's your Gentiles, nations, aliens, etc.

Second:  One is circumcised in heart  only by Christ. 

Third:  I believe that physical circumcision was symbolic of the circumcision that the redeemed will experience when we are "changed in a moment" at the Second Coming, when the "flesh" is gone and we receive the new "spiritual body". 

 

Only redeemed Israelites, who have received immortality, can enter this future Temple.

[Ron Amnsn]

Rachel,

Daniel 9:25 to 27 when and why the temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, being nailed to the cross along with the other ceremonial laws

 

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

Decree to restore and rebuild jjerusalem issued in 457 BC. Jesus annointed in 27 AD  which was 69 weeks (483 prophetic days) or 483 .years after 457 BC

 

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 

During the last of the 70 weeks of Daniel beginning in 27 AD Jesus would preach and be crucified/

 

 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In the midst of the last week of the 70 weeks He would be crucified (3 and 1/2 years after His baptism - 31 AD.) causing the sacrifices and oblations to end. This was demonstrated by the temple curtain being rent , exposing the most holy place to view by all.

 

One of the reasons that Hebrew Roots believers do not accept Daniel 9:25-27 as proof that Messiah would end the animal sacrifices is because we (like the apostle Paul) are also working to show the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.  As Rachel pointed out, Daniel 9:26-27 speaks of two people: The Messiah who does good things, and the "prince who is to come" who will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

If we tell a Jew that it is the Messiah that puts an end to the sacrifices in Daniel 9:27, then they will use that as proof that Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel.  They will rightly point out that both historians and the New Testament agree that the animal sacrifices continued at the Temple after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.  It was the army of Titus who destroyed the city and the Temple and put an end to the animal sacrifices in AD 70, about four decades after Jesus did his work in Israel.

[Ron Amnsn]

I don't want to quote the whole thing, but Hebrews chapters 7- 11 explains things well.  See especially 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, and 10:1-10

 

Hebrews does a fine job of explaining why the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus were more effectual and superior to the priesthood and sacrifices at the Temple.  But Hebrews does not say anything to denigrate or take away from the valid work of the priests and sacrifices at the Temple which God himself established and then confirmed to the descendants of Phinehas as a perpetual priesthood through a covenant of peace (Num 25:11-13) and then confirmed again after all failures of the Israelites with a declaration that the Levitical priesthood would remain as long as day and night continue (Jeremiah 33:19-22).

 

Hebrews 7:27 says, "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (NASB)

I think people who interpret this verse as an end of the animal sacrifices put a lot of emphasis on the English phrase "once for all"  and insert a concept of their choice after it, ie "once for all time" or "once for all the sacrifices" or "once for all sins".  The problem with this, other than inserting their own concept into the text, is that the Greek doesn't include the "for all" part of "once for all".  The Greek word means "once" expressed emphatically.  In order to try to capture that "emphatic once-ness" meaning in English, the translators have used the English phrase "once for all", partly because English doesn't have a word for an emphatic "once" and partly because that translation seems to suggest support for all the man-made theories about the sacrifice of Jesus setting aside or replacing the sacrifices instructed in the Word of God.  This verse in Hebrews says that Jesus would offer himself as a sacrifice just once, which is very true.

 

Hebrews 9:12 says, "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (NASB)

Here again we have the English phrase "once for all" used to translate the Greek word for emphatic once-ness.  Again, the Greek does not contain the words "for all", to which people can so easily attach whatever concept they want the verse to say.  Jesus did present his blood just once.  But that doesn't say that he set aside the instructions in the Word of God for presenting the Levitical sacrifices.

 

Hebrews 9:26 says, "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (NASB)

Jesus did put away sin by his sacrifice which happened only once.  It is possible that such a sacrifice could bring to an end all the Levitical sin offerings instructed in the Old Testament, if God actually instructed his people to stop offering those sin offerings that He had instituted.  But God never actually told anyone to stop offering the Levitical sin offerings.

 

It would be a significant stretch of this verse to assume that the sacrifice of Jesus that puts away sin, would also bring an end to the animal sacrifices that were not sin offerings.  The votive sacrifices were not sin offerings, such as the one that Paul went to the Temple to offer at the conclusion of his vow. The peace or fellowship offerings were not sin offerings.  The thanksgiving offerings were not sin offerings, and the wave offerings were not sin offerings.

 

Hebrews 10:1-10 says several things that were just as true of the animal sacrifices when God first instituted them as they were true when Hebrews was written several decades after the death of Jesus.

1 "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." 

2 "Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?"

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

4 "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Which part of these verses indicates a change in the effectiveness of animal sacrifices?  None.  They couldn't "make perfect" those who offered them in the time of Moses just the same as when Hebrews was written decades after the resurrection of Jesus.  The sacrifices were a yearly reminder of sin in the time of Moses just as they were when Hebrews was written.  It was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins in the time of Moses just as it was impossible when Hebrews was written.

 

Hebrews 10:5-9 quotes a passage from Psalm 40 (quoted in ALL CAPS in the NASB) and then divides that passage in two and talks about those two parts as the "first" and "second".

5 "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

         “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,

         BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

6      IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

7      “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME

         (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)

         TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’ ”

8  After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),

9      then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second."

If a person wants to set aside God's Word regarding the Levitical sacrifices, you can put a lot of emphasis on that last sentence without checking to see if has been translated accurately, nor bothering to understand what the two parts of the quoted passage are actually talking about.  The popular interpretation of that last verse contradicts what Jesus taught about "not a jot or tittle will disappear from the Law".  The popular interpretation of these verses would do nothing to convince the believing Jews (who were the original audience for Hebrews) that a passage that quotes from Psalms "Behold I have come to do your will" would actually mean to stop following the instructions that God gave in Scripture regarding how He wants to be worshiped.  There are other interpretations of this passage that do not contradict the teaching of Jesus, nor contradict the Old Testament Scriptures, which according to Jesus, testified of himself.

 

10 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Again, this verse contains the Greek word indicating the emphatic once-ness of the offering that Jesus offered, and again translators have inserted the words "for all". 

[Sojourner]

Hebrews does a fine job of explaining why the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus were more effectual and superior to the priesthood and sacrifices at the Temple.  But Hebrews does not say anything to denigrate or take away from the valid work of the priests and sacrifices at the Temple which God himself established and then confirmed to the descendants of Phinehas as a perpetual priesthood through a covenant of peace (Num 25:11-13) and then confirmed again after all failures of the Israelites with a declaration that the Levitical priesthood would remain as long as day and night continue (Jeremiah 33:19-22).

 

Hebrews 7:27 says, "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (NASB)

I think people who interpret this verse as an end of the animal sacrifices put a lot of emphasis on the English phrase "once for all"  and insert a concept of their choice after it, ie "once for all time" or "once for all the sacrifices" or "once for all sins".  The problem with this, other than inserting their own concept into the text, is that the Greek doesn't include the "for all" part of "once for all".  The Greek word means "once" expressed emphatically.  In order to try to capture that "emphatic once-ness" meaning in English, the translators have used the English phrase "once for all", partly because English doesn't have a word for an emphatic "once" and partly because that translation seems to suggest support for all the man-made theories about the sacrifice of Jesus setting aside or replacing the sacrifices instructed in the Word of God.  This verse in Hebrews says that Jesus would offer himself as a sacrifice just once, which is very true.

 

Hebrews 9:12 says, "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (NASB)

Here again we have the English phrase "once for all" used to translate the Greek word for emphatic once-ness.  Again, the Greek does not contain the words "for all", to which people can so easily attach whatever concept they want the verse to say.  Jesus did present his blood just once.  But that doesn't say that he set aside the instructions in the Word of God for presenting the Levitical sacrifices.

 

Hebrews 9:26 says, "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (NASB)

Jesus did put away sin by his sacrifice which happened only once.  It is possible that such a sacrifice could bring to an end all the Levitical sin offerings instructed in the Old Testament, if God actually instructed his people to stop offering those sin offerings that He had instituted.  But God never actually told anyone to stop offering the Levitical sin offerings.

 

It would be a significant stretch of this verse to assume that the sacrifice of Jesus that puts away sin, would also bring an end to the animal sacrifices that were not sin offerings.  The votive sacrifices were not sin offerings, such as the one that Paul went to the Temple to offer at the conclusion of his vow. The peace or fellowship offerings were not sin offerings.  The thanksgiving offerings were not sin offerings, and the wave offerings were not sin offerings.

 

Hebrews 10:1-10 says several things that were just as true of the animal sacrifices when God first instituted them as they were true when Hebrews was written several decades after the death of Jesus.

1 "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." 

2 "Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?"

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

4 "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Which part of these verses indicates a change in the effectiveness of animal sacrifices?  None.  They couldn't "make perfect" those who offered them in the time of Moses just the same as when Hebrews was written decades after the resurrection of Jesus.  The sacrifices were a yearly reminder of sin in the time of Moses just as they were when Hebrews was written.  It was impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins in the time of Moses just as it was impossible when Hebrews was written.

 

Hebrews 10:5-9 quotes a passage from Psalm 40 (quoted in ALL CAPS in the NASB) and then divides that passage in two and talks about those two parts as the "first" and "second".

5 "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

         “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,

         BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

6      IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

7      “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME

         (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)

         TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’ ”

8  After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),

9      then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second."

If a person wants to set aside God's Word regarding the Levitical sacrifices, you can put a lot of emphasis on that last sentence without checking to see if has been translated accurately, nor bothering to understand what the two parts of the quoted passage are actually talking about.  The popular interpretation of that last verse contradicts what Jesus taught about "not a jot or tittle will disappear from the Law".  The popular interpretation of these verses would do nothing to convince the believing Jews (who were the original audience for Hebrews) that a passage that quotes from Psalms "Behold I have come to do your will" would actually mean to stop following the instructions that God gave in Scripture regarding how He wants to be worshiped.  There are other interpretations of this passage that do not contradict the teaching of Jesus, nor contradict the Old Testament Scriptures, which according to Jesus, testified of himself.

 

10 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Again, this verse contains the Greek word indicating the emphatic once-ness of the offering that Jesus offered, and again translators have inserted the words "for all". 

So how do Hebrew Roots believers offer up Sacrifices without a Temple or a Levitical Priesthood without altering the Scriptural Commands of how these offerings are to be made? 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

I was hoping you would join this discussion.  You're the one to give us the understanding/interpretation held by the Hebrew Roots believers. 

We both just need to stay very respectful of one another, while we disagree. 

Hope we can.

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

Is it not plain from the text in Dan 9:27 and the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-26 that the week being spoken of in Dan 9:27 is the 70th week and that 70th week is from 27- 34 AD?

KJV

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

NIV

Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d]”[e]

If Daniel says the sacrifice and oblation cease in the midst of the 70th week, then that is 31 AD,,40 years before Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So it must be the Messiah and not the destruction of the temple that causes the sacrifices to cease.

 

The LORD - over and over and over again - takes responsibility for destruction carried out by the enemies of Israel.  I will quote just one passage.

 

    1 Kings 14:15  [Ahijah's prophecy of the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians]  “For the Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and He shall root up Israel out of this good land, which He gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the rivers, because they have made their groves, provoking the Lord to anger.”  

 

Could we possibly understand the Daniel 9:27 prophecy in this light?  The LORD would bring an end to the Temple with the sacrifices, by allowing Titus to destroy it. 

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

I do not believe that the years 27 to 31AD are verified beyond doubt.  The exact date of the command "to restore and to build Jerusalem" is still much debated. 

 

Most scholars date the crucifixion to 33AD.  According to the NASA calendar, there was a total lunar eclipse on the eve of Nissan 15 in THAT year. 

 

And I believe the prophecy could have more than one application. 

1.  At the time of Christ

2.  "in the latter days" leading up to the return of Christ in glory

 

"he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him".  (Dan 9:27)

 

The "abomination of desolation" will finally be destroyed at "the end".  He was NOT destroyed in the first century. 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

When do you see an end to animal sacrifices? 

 

Do you believe that redeemed Israel will continue to drag bleating, terrified lambs before an alter in the "new earth" to slit their throats and watch them bleed out.  Do you really BELIEVE that our God and His Son WANT this? 

 

What do I do with the prophecy of Isaiah cpt 11 concerning the "new earth".

 

"They will not hurt or destroy anywhere on my holy mountain, for the earth will be as full of the knowledge of ADONAI as water covering the sea" (Isa 11:9 CJB).

 

"'The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion eat straw like an ox (but the serpent - its food will be dust). They will not hurt or destroy anywhere on my holy mountain,' says ADONAI" (Isa 65:25 CJB).

 

Sounds like NO KILLING to me.

 

If the carnivores are going to become vegetarian, then don't you think the people will be also?  And if the people are vegetarian, then the priests will not EAT of the sin offering as commanded in the law.  I really cannot imagine a big fire pit to burn the remains of sacrificial animals.  THAT would stink up the City. 

[Ted Oplinger]

Rachel,

 

Forgive me if you took my post to be a rebuttal of sorts of your position. Your reply seemed to indicate this had happened. It was not intended to be such.

 

I look at the subject from a solid SDA perspective. I know from past discussions your understandings differ from that on key points. I appreciate your clarification of where you approach the subject at hand, but it really wasn't necessary - I remember from past discussions where we differ, and thought I had taken such into account when posting. I guess I fumbled and stumbled again...sigh...the hazards of electronic communication arise again.

 

With that, one gist of what I was driving at in my post above was this: Ezekiel's Temple was to be built, according to the vision and plans given Ezekiel, only as Israel came as a nation before God ashamed of their sins and transgressions. They did not, so that Temple wasn't built, and I can't see it being built and dedicated as written (with animal sacrifices) because the Cross has already occurred. As you concur, the blood of Christ is the superior offering, and I will add that this point negates the need for any animal sacrifice for dedication/atonement in the name of God in the post-Cross passage of time. How to convince others (like the HR groups) of that? That can be a hard hurdle to jump.

 

From my perspective, Christ's sacrificial use of His blood in heaven necessarily negates the use of a pre-Cross sacrificial system in any proposed building of Ezekiel's Temple at any point in time after the Cross, and throws a big obstacle into the argument that favors such a building. If Christ's sacrificial blood in heaven is superior to that of blood and goats on earth, why do people think God will go backwards to an inferior presentation?

 

A second gist I sought to make was that every God-founded Sanctuary/Temple built on earth, was done so with plans given by God. The detail I must have left off, is that those plans and dedication sacrifices were given contemporaneously with the building project.

 

The Sanctuary in Exodus was built according to plans given by God to Moses at that time. It was dedicated using the symbols of the Gospel atonement that pointed forward to the Cross. 

 

The Temple in Jerusalem (Solomon's Temple) was built according to plans given by God to Solomon's father, David. Again, I see the contemporaneous component at work in both building and in the pre-Cross dedication sacrifices.

 

Then we get to the post-Exiles. Again, I see a contemporaneous component in play - Ezekiel was the other prophet of YHWH in Babylon during the Exile. However, this time, I see a stringent condition attached to this building project that is very similar to what was seen in Exodus with the Golden Calf episode: Israel would continue on with the sanctuary only on the condition of having a penitent spirit. I see perfect harmony with that statement in Ezekiel 43:10-11 and Daniel 9:24 - to build the Temple shown Ezekiel, Israel would have to decide to forgo its national and religious pride, and submit to the sovereignty of God in spreading His Gospel of atonement.

 

Zerrubbabel's/Herod's Temple had neither component - no God-given plan, and no national repentance. I believe God allowed it to happen because He was going to fulfill the Redeemer Promise through the line of Judah just as He had promised, regardless of what Israel would do with the gift and privileges He had given them. What would happen between Christ and the Jewish leadership was I believe cast at this point in time - centuries before it actually occurred.

 

Ezekiel's plans were contemporaneous - yes, I am repeating that word, for I cannot stress it enough - with both the time of the Exile's return and in placement of the dedicatory sacrifices in the pre-Cross era. From my understanding, any placement of Ezekiel's Temple outside this framework makes no sense at all - it is like trying to sever the final week of Daniel's seventy week prophecy at place it far in the future.

 

Any future earthly temple God designs to be built would necessarily flow from the consistent pattern He has already demonstrated - giving plans to recognized spokesman contemporaneous with both the building project and in the sacrifices type/antitype. This leads back to the first gist above - why would God go necessarily backwards, when His consistent manner has been to point forward? 

 

I'm not saying God couldn't do it - I'm saying it differs markedly from His consistent actions with respect to Man's salvation from Genesis 3:15 onward.

 

Hence, the issue I see with the HR and related groups, with respect to Daniel 9:27 (for example) is not really whether or not they would agree to Christ being the fulfillment...it would be in agreeing in Daniel 9:24 that they need the same penitent spiritual attitude with God desired to see in Israel in their return from Exile several centuries prior to the Cross. That never occurred then - only the adherence to outward formalities that never touched the heart. Confession was made, yet such was not reflected in a marked change in the day-to-day life attitude and spirit relating between God and man and with each other. Could people do so as individuals and as a collected group? Undoubtedly, yes. However, I believe such penitence and subsequent enlightenment would bring such groups to a knowledge of Christ being exactly what the OT states He is - the central focus of the redemption of all peoples in all places, for all times. That would inevitably lead such away from the doctrine that animal sacrifices are required in the post-Cross passage of time. I use the word "inevitable" from God's point of view, not from our human lifetime perspective.

 

One fatal flaw in the sons of light throughout time - from Eden to present - has been the desire to wrap our identity and culture around the forms we understand in God's Word, rather than wrapping them around God Himself, to whom these forms point to. We tend to view these things as our heritage and our image, neglecting the fact we were created in the image of God in the very beginning, and that image is our real heritage. I don't believe there is a group in existence (or ever has been) that hasn't succumbed to this, and is our collected current standing as believers before God today (see Revelation 3:14-21).

 

It is why we fumble and stumble when approaching others with the Gospel message (whether they are believers or not) - in reaching out to those "who don't believe like 'us' ", so to speak. In the thought that if an earthly Temple is built now, animal sacrifices are mandatory, I see a continuance of that style of thinking - wrapping an identity around forms in a zeal which is not consistent with revealed heavenly reality in the progress of the plan of Man's redemption. How to broach it, and move such to center on Christ as the central point of Man's redemption? Well, as you can see, I fumble and stumble as much as the rest of us. It is one reason why we fumble and stumble even here at CA trying to explain our different understandings with each other.

 

It seems the most difficult thing in spreading the Gospel, is getting the mindset off of such exclusivity (salvation and promises belong only to the "right" group with the "right beliefs"), and work according to the inclusiveness of God's outreach (salvation and the promises belong to all human beings - regardless of belief - but can only be of advantage when one comes to belief of the Messiah).

 

I think Ellen White is correct in her assertion that we must be firmly grounded in what the Bible teaches about the sanctuary and its functions. We must be able to see and demonstrate Christ in every aspect we understand of it, and realize that the sanctuary/Temple "pattern" in heaven is not just physical, but functional in the plan of Redemption. What is illustrated in forms and rites in what we read in the OT reflects some aspect of what Father is doing in heaven through Christ to effect Man's salvation. From my perspective, once that connection is made, several things begin clicking into place. Salvation by faith needs to be seen as one grand, consistent, and seamless movement from Eden to New Jerusalem, instead of the disjointed and clumsy Patriarchal Age/Jews/Gentile Church/? paradigms currently understood and prevailing today in most circles of thought.

 

Christ expected as much from the religious leaders when He encountered them while walking among us - even in their nationally impenitent state post-Exile. Would He expect less from us today, even in our Laodicean state?

[LifeHiscost]

The LORD - over and over and over again - takes responsibility for destruction carried out by the enemies of Israel.  I will quote just one passage.

 

    1 Kings 14:15  [Ahijah's prophecy of the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians]  “For the Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and He shall root up Israel out of this good land, which He gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the rivers, because they have made their groves, provoking the Lord to anger.”  

 

Could we possibly understand the Daniel 9:27 prophecy in this light?  The LORD would bring an end to the Temple with the sacrifices, by allowing Titus to destroy it. 

Since God is Sovereign and never loses control, I'm satisfied the answer is yes. However, just as He allows allows those made in His image  free will, the destruction is God's response to that freewill that has been exercised in destructive choices that would bring down all that is good if allowed to continue unabated.

God never designed Lucifer to be independent of the Life given to him from God Himself, but when Lucifer chose that independence, contrary to God's will, he became satan and has only been allowed to exist until all in the universe will be able to see clearly that God is just and merciful, thus vindicating His loving rule to all and assuring that affliction shall never rise again.

 

9Whatever you devise against the LORD, He will make a complete end of it. Distress will not rise up twice. 10Like tangled thorns, And like those who are drunken with their drink, They are consumed As stubble completely withered.…Nahum 1

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

[8thdaypriest]

THE TEARING OF THE VEIL

 

Jackson,

I wanted to recommend a DVD published by HATIKVA MINISTRIES (www.hatikva.org).

 

The speaker here gives a lot of detail, and is very convincing (at least for me).  He explains that "the veil" which was torn when Christ expired was the main entrance veil of the Temple, not the veils (2 overlapping in Solomon's Temple) inside the Temple, between the holy place and the most holy place.  

 

And IF the veils separating the two apartments were torn inside the Temple, only the priests would "see" - not the people. 

 

The centurion who crucified Christ "saw" this veil torn, and his response was "surely this was the Son of God".  From the Mt where Christ died, it WAS possible to see down into the courtyard of the Temple.