Will there be sacrifices, offerings, Sabbaths, and Festival Observances in the Kingdom?
There is an anonymous commentator at Banned by HWA who regularly asserts that there will be sacrifices, offerings, and festival observances during the Millenium. This assertion is based on the premise that many of the prophecies found in the prophetic books of the Old Testament (like Ezekiel and Zechariah) apply to the Millenium and/or God's future Kingdom on this earth. Indeed, these prophecies have been a source of some consternation among Christians for many years and have been used as proof by others that the Bible is unreliable and contradictory. The consternation and the "proof" are a consequence of the aforementioned notion (that these prophecies apply to the future), and this is clearly at odds with what is revealed in the New Testament about Jesus of Nazareth (especially the book of Hebrews).
Recently, in response to my assertion that the book of Hebrews makes clear that Christ's New Covenant makes the old one obsolete. The commentator observed: "I would suggest that it is not the view of the author of Hebrews as your view misses the nuance of Hebraic argument. Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: and it is complicated, at least for me, in that you are not distinguishing between the Church Administration of the New Covenant and the Kingdom Administration of the New Covenant. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Do you believe that Christ, after his return, will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah? I do; and the Ezekielian Torah is for the Messianic Age and therefore 'is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch [for the new era]...' (Moshe Greenberg, 'The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration,' pp.233-35). It is more but it points in the right direction."
Unfortunately, the view of this commentator is not an isolated one. In response to the question, Why will people offer animal sacrifices in the Millennial Temple? in an article by David Levy for Israel My Glory, we read: "People often ask, 'If Jesus’ sacrifice was the only efficacious, once-for-all sacrifice to expiate sin (Heb. 9:12), why should animal sacrifices, which could never take away sin (10:4), be offered in the Millennial Temple during the Millennium?' It is true the sacrifices in the Millennial Temple will not expiate sin, just as the Mosaic offerings could not take away sin (v. 4). Many conservative commentators believe these offerings will be memorials, similar to communion that Christians take in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. They believe the offerings will serve as visible reminders of Christ’s efficacious work. Although true, it seems these sacrifices also will have an additional function. Scripture says they will be offered 'to make atonement for the house of Israel' (Ezek. 45:17; cf. vv. 15, 20). This sacrificial system will not constitute a return to the Old Testament Mosaic Covenant or Law but will be a new system set up by the Lord with a dispensational distinctive applicable to the Millennial Kingdom."
I believe that these views are inconsistent with both the theology of the New Testament and a Christocentric interpretation of those Old Testament prophecies. In the remainder of this post, we will explore the scriptural evidence which demonstrates the validity of this observation.
Moreover, most biblical scholars acknowledge that the anonymously authored epistle to the Hebrews is the most direct and cogent explanation of the Christian perspective on how the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the Christ event. In the eighth chapter of that book, we read: "Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." The author then proceeded to quote from one of the OT prophets: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." This is immediately followed by: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." In this way, the author of the epistle makes clear that he/she believed that Jesus Christ and his covenant represented the fulfillment of this prophecy.
In the next chapter (Hebrews 9), the author proceeded to explain how Christ was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system and the symbolism and ceremony described in Torah associated with the Day of Atonement. The author wrote: "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Continuing in the epistle, we read: "Therefore he [Christ] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."
Thus, the author has set the stage to draw the following conclusions about Christ's fulfillment of both the prophet quoted and the provisions in Torah related to sacrifices and the Day of Atonement. The author of Hebrews concluded: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
In the following chapter (Hebrews 10), the author of the epistle summarized his/her conclusions about Christ's complete fulfillment of both the provisions in the Law and the prediction of the prophet. We read there: "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ When he said above, 'You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings' (these are offered according to the law), then he added, 'Behold, I have come to do your will.' He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
Did you catch that? According to the author of this epistle, Christ is the fulfillment of the sacrificial system! Sacrifices are no longer necessary - PERIOD! Christ's one sacrifice has atoned for our sins and has reconciled us to God. Future sacrifices cannot and will not accomplish what has already been accomplished by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the ULTIMATE Lamb of God, sacrificed on our behalf. He is the one who has carried our sins away into the wilderness, away from us and God's presence!
Now, what about those prophecies related to a return to (or representing slight modifications of) the sacrificial system of Torah? Unfortunately, this is where the Armstrong Churches of God and too many other Christians have gone astray! They ignore or forget that ALL of the Old Testament prophets were sent to the sinful people of Israel and Judah during the period of the Davidic kingdom, or while they were in captivity after its prophesied fall! Don't believe me? Take another look at ALL of the writings of those prophets. The vast majority of those prophetic messages are clearly addressed to the people of Israel and Judah (there are a few which relate to some of the Gentile nations which interacted with the Israelites in some shape, form, or fashion). Indeed, the vast majority of these prophecies are predicated on the same principle which the Old Covenant was founded upon: "If you do this, God will do these things for you!" In other words, the fulfillment of many of these prophecies was contingent upon the repentance of the people for their continuing bad behavior, and their good behavior going forward.
Now, as we have already demonstrated, there is also another element present in many of these prophecies: That many of the things whose fulfilment was predicated on the Israelites behavior back in the day, would find their ultimate fulfillment in the work of the Messiah. In other words, the Israelites could have had a Temple like the one described in Ezekiel, but their continuous violation of the terms of God's covenant with them precluded that ever coming to pass!
In the fortieth chapter of Ezekiel, we read: "In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me to the city. In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south. When he brought me there, behold, there was a man whose appearance was like bronze, with a linen cord and a measuring reed in his hand. And he was standing in the gateway. And the man said to me, 'Son of man, look with your eyes, and hear with your ears, and set your heart upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you. Declare all that you see to the house of Israel.'" The prophet himself gives the context for what follows (the twenty-fifth year of their exile from their homeland). Moreover, once again, the prophet is told to give this message to "the house of Israel."
Frankly, some biblical scholars have ignored or failed to recognize that the majority of these prophecies were directed at the people of Judah and Israel back in the day, NOT to folks in the Twenty-first Century or the Millennium! Likewise, as we have already noted, some of them have ignored or failed to understand that many of the prophecies of the Old Testament were contingent upon the behavior of the people concerned (like Jonah's prophecy for the people of Nineveh). If Israel had heeded the warnings of her prophets and repented, they would not have been defeated, taken into captivity, and exiled from their homeland!
In similar fashion, if Israel had fulfilled its purpose (to introduce God to the Gentile world), then the vision of the prophet Ezekiel would have happened in their day. There would have been a Temple with water flowing from it, and the city of Jerusalem would have been known as "The Lord is There" (See Ezekiel 47 and 48). Nevertheless, imbedded within many of these same visions and prophecies, we are informed that there is also a connection to Messiah, that some of these elements will find their ultimate fulfillment in him, and not in the physical fulfillment which was contingent on the behavior of Abraham's physical descendants.
In other words, this writer does NOT see a return to the shadows and symbols of the Old Covenant. Christ's work makes that both unnecessary and untenable!
32 comments:
Its because HWA/WCG specifically taught animal sacrifices would resume after Jesus' messianic reign:
"After the coming of Christ to rule, it is evident that Israel is again to offer sacrifices, burnt offerings and meat offerings."
US&BIP CH.5 - Section: Throne Not Over Jews
I think this should be a point pushed on all the splinters to explain why they refuse to sacrifice animals as a Levite would, yet collect tithes as only a Levite should.
What on earth was Paul and Luke doing observing the days of unleavened bread and Pentecost after Christ's resurrection?? Acts 20:6, 16.
Once again, Christ, Paul and the other apostles were observant Jews. Hence, it would be unusual (and problematic in Christ's case) to find them not observing the Jewish holidays. I suggest reading Acts 15 as to what Gentiles were required to do.
What on earth was Paul and Luke doing
Many believe Paul chose to observe certain aspects of Jewish life such as circumcising a companion, and attending on sabbath and holydays reasons such as silencing critics, and being all things to all men so the preaching of the gospel would not be impeded.
If people choose to observe such holyday,s and there are a variety of organizations which do so, this of course is their freedom if that is a help to their faith in so far such observation makes them better appreciate the symbolism
Armstrong churches go a big step further however and teach that their observation of sabbath and holydays are unique signs of their being the one true church of this time.
Herein lies their massive error and self deception as they go out of their way to denigrate believers who see a different message in the scriptures. Introducing false claims their days are pagan thus denigrating their faith.
Many do see Paul in the book of Galatians as a whole as a tirade against this church that had begun taking on Jewish custom in the belief that the Mosaic Law needed to be followed for salvation. They see this likely as Paul, who was an Hebrew of the Hebrews having been raised in Judaism and zealous of the law, included himself among those who were in "bondage to the elements of the world" when one reads Galatians.
''So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world''
However the observation of any days whatever be the subject of Galatians - pagan or Moses -won't save anyone. This issue is a matter for any believer to decide upon but dogmatic assertions that only they are knowing truth and their observing of sabbath and holydays identifies them as the unique one true church is an indication of the level of their self deception.
The Old Covenant blinds those that follow it. IICor 3:6-18. When they try to understand the New through the Old, they can't comprehend the freedom they have in Christ. This is especially true when you try to understand prophecy. All of the prophecies of the Old Testament were addressed to the people under the Old Covenant. Those under it didn't understand them. It wasn't until Jesus and the Apostles came along that the prophecies were explained. History shows the early Post-Apostolic Christians understood those prophecies. The Adventists and other sabbatarian groups reject the understanding that the early Christians had because they were not following the law of Moses anymore. So, they fall prey to any silly speculations by a quack like Pack, Flurry, or Hal Linsday.
Think not.....but to make replete, to show you how to obey the law to its fullest spiritual intent....
I'd like to share some "food of thought" regarding this Bible Talk thread which begins with asking a question:
"Will there be sacrifices, offerings, Sabbaths, and Festival Observances in the Kingdom?"
Nice question regarding the Kingdom, and there was no mention about any millennium!
And my answer would be: "Yes,"...but, yes, if that Kingdom comes into existence after that so-called Millennium, and after that period of time when Satan exits the pit, again causes wars and fighting worldwide (even messing up the city of Jerusalem), and then is put to death, his first death...and some time thereafter the second resurrection occurs and God's Kingdom is then established on earth.
However, this thread continues with saying something, not about a Kingdom, but about the Millennium: "...There is an anonymous commentator at Banned by HWA who regularly asserts that there will be sacrifices, offerings, and festival observances during the Millenium..."
But, then, the thread continues with a comment mentioning both the Kingdom and Millennium:
"...This assertion is based on the premise that many of the prophecies found in the prophetic books of the Old Testament (like Ezekiel and Zechariah) apply to the Millenium and/or God's future Kingdom on this earth."
So often, people speak about God's Kingdom and the Millennium as though they are synonymous, and then use the scriptures in the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah) and apply them to something called the Millennium while saying those same verses also apply to God's Kingdom on earth; however, should the Kingdom and Millennium always be considered and treated as synonymous?
As an aside, could God's Kingdom exist on earth if it were during a time referred to as a "famine in the land...of hearing the words of the LORD: (Amos 8:11-12)?"
That famine, to my knowledge has not yet occurred on earth, and it seems so foolish to stupid to think such a famine would exist when God's Kingdom actually is established on earth; however, might that famine occur during some other time period such as a Millennium?
If that "food for thought" weren't enough, one could ask: "Will there be sacrifices, offerings, Sabbaths, and Festival Observances during the time of that famine of the land/Word?"
Time will tell...
John
Agree millennium is not the equivalent of Gods kingdom. The post is addressing the commonly held Armstrong view that kingdom equals millennium which is a major error. I’m sure the author recognizes this Armstrong assertion be but a part of understanding
cheers
Here again is something that's unknowable, but some folks we know claim to have all the details. You can't "prove" your doctrines by speculating that we'll be keeping them in the millennium, 100 year period, or kingdom. Fact is, we'll be doing whatever Father God wants us to be doing, and there will most likely be many surprises for everybody. I don't think St. Peter is going to be handing out thumb drives containing pdf files of all the Worldwide Church of God booklets at the golden gates.
In case you have not heard, Christianity is a minority religion in this world and always has been. What this means is that there are a lot of people both past, present and future who could give a rats ass about Jesus Christ, his sacrifice, and rulership.
They know NOTHING! The things of the Christian God are pure foolishness to them (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14, Romans 8:7). But according to the post, when Christ returns, the New covenant goes into effect and, presto changeo we all live happily ever after.
This is a clear case of comparing apples with oranges. God's calling of His church, the body of Christ, a special people for His name sake, a spiritual priesthood to reign with Christ IS UNIQUE, and quite different than His dealings with the heathen after His coming.
The profane have no basis for FAITH, which is necessary for anything ( Romans 10:13-17). These people require education in the ways of God. Scriptures such as Isaiah 2,11, Zech.14, speak of that education! Just because the tools used to accomplish the task (the law, sabbath, holydays) do not align with your current theology is no reason to reinterpret Scripture and make it of none effect.
Acts 3:19-21 says Christ's return begins a time of restitution of all things AS SPOKEN of by the PROPHETS (Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.). The Millennium is merely the initial transitional phase of that glorious KOG.
"for He must reign till the Father has put all enemies under his feet", including death (1 Corinthians 15:25-28). Every man in his own order!
This is not merely an ARMSTRONG thing, for the post acknowledges other orthodox Christians agree as well. See also gotquestions.org for information on sacrifices in the Millennium.
The post concludes, " some Biblical scholars have ignored or failed to recognize that the majority of these prophecies (which ones?) were directed at Israel and Judah of the past, and not folks in the Millennium "?
" And if EQYPT comes not up to the feast" (Zech.14)???
Enough said!
Miller Jones
Excellent exposition. If I might underscore some of your statements. A passage in the Bible that is a sharp point of controversy between Armstrongists and Christians is the following:
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5)
The Book of Hebrews is the expounding of this verse. It is a book of Christology. Hebrews tell us what Jesus meant when he made the statement above in Matthew 5. Hebrews relates Jesus to the Law and the Prophets. It also elucidates the brief phrase "until all is accomplished" by pointing out that the Old Covenant has become obsolete.
While most of the Book of Hebrews explains the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant, it also touches on prophecy. One of the most dramatic statements is:
"Jesus the Annointed is the same yesterday and today and unto the the ages." (NT, David Bentley Hart)
Jesus as the Logos owns the future. He is Alpha and Omega. He is the fulfillment of all the prophecies found in the OT. Jesus stated, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." We have departed the age of Moses and the Judaic religion and have entered into the age of Jesus. And that is the disposition of the OT prophets and prophecies.
Nicely done.
Scout
Scout 756 says,
"Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecies found in the OT. We have entered into the age of Jesus".
Why limit this to your own personal box?
The age of Jesus (the Christ event) began at his human birth and scripturally cultimates when He turns the Kingdom over to the Father (1 Cor.15:25-28).
There is a lot of theology between those 2 points and much of it is found in the OT scriptures yet to happen.
The Christ event = "Yesterday, today, and Forever"!!
Ah yes I hope the cults will cultimate soon long before the culmination.
Thanks, Scout.
BP8,
I cited two prophetic examples (Ezekiel Temple and Zechariah FOT). Your comment 'The Christ event = "Yesterday, today, and Forever'!!" is a valid observation regarding Christocentric nature of OT prophecy. However, we should also note that Christ has still fulfilled everything - even the consequences of his fulfillment which haven't yet come to pass. Unfortunately, the ACOG's make the same mistake with prophecy that they do with the Law. They simply cannot discern the fact that fulfillment means just that - It is not the equivalent of negating or doing away with something.
My latest post from my blog:
Just before he ascended into heaven, Christ's disciples asked him: "Lord, has the time come for you to free Israel and restore our kingdom?"
Christ answered: "The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:6-8, NLT)
A couple of things to pull out of this statement:
1) Christ basically told them that the timing of God's plans was none of their business!
2) He told them that they would receive power when they were imbued with God's Spirit.
3) He gave them their marching orders. They were to focus on telling people everywhere about him!
In other words, Christ's final instructions to his disciples was to instruct them not to worry about what was prophesied to happen sometime in the future!
Lonnie 1125
Fulfillment??
Where do you place the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ in your "fulfillment" box? It is the most important prophecy in the old testament and is yet to be fulfilled.
Also, having a glimpse of God's future plans as found in Isaiah 2, 11, and Zech.14 is not something I WORRY ABOUT! It's just good to know.
BP8,
The Second Coming is important, but it would/could not have happened without that first Advent. Once again, it is a consequence of that event.
I see your point but I think you are stretching it beyond what scriptures allows.
"Consequences of the event"?
Is that your criteria and license in determining Biblical literalism?
Salvation and the Kingdom of God are both present realities, being products of the death and resurrection of Christ. Yet both will be fully accomplished (consummated) at Christ's return, LITERALLY!
I see no great divide in what the NT prophesies compared with the OT. They fit together (Acts 3:19-21). The NT predicts a restitution and restoration and the OT prophets described it. It is understandable, no need to play word games!
BP8 9:14 wrote, “There is a lot of theology between those 2 points and much of it is found in the OT scriptures yet to happen.”
If you are entranced by Armstrongism, it may appear that there is much prophecy that must yet happen. GTA used to say to his glassy-eyed audience that one “full third” of the Bible is prophecy and 90 percent of it yet has to be fulfilled. My guess is that the statistics in this sound bite must still hold because not much has happened prophetically since GTA days. This GTA view is predicated on British-Israelism, the type-antitype hermeneutic and a desire to frighten people into donating their last dollar.
But we might look at a case in point. Isaiah predicted a New Heavens and New Earth in Isiah 65. That has yet to happen logistically. This could be one of the many unfulfilled prophecies that GTA was referring to. Maybe Jesus was wrong when he said, “All The Prophets and The Written Law have prophesied until Yohannan (Aramaic Bible).” Maybe Jesus needed GTA to set him straight.
No, Jesus was right. The New Heavens and New Earth belong to the Kingdom of God and Jesus is the King of that Kingdom. Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life.” Jesus said, “I make all things new.” Were it not for this reality, the idea of the New Heavens and New Earth would not have traction. The moment Jesus came into existence as God Incarnate, the New Heavens and New Earth were instantiated in his very being, in his will. The chronological event must yet occur but the ideological event has already happened. Jesus may do with prophecy what he will. Yahweh inspired Isaiah and Yahweh can bring Isaiah's prophecies to pass if Yahweh's purposes and conditions are met.
HWA was famous for using the promises of God to force God to do something, like a jailhouse lawyer. He recounts this in his autobiography. God is true to his word but he is the ultimate arbiter. He is the ultimate condition on everything. The OT prophecies are contingent and not necessary. Only God is necessary. This is an irritation to prophecy weenies who like to think that the prophecies they tout are "a priori" - like mathematics. This could go much further but it is fair to say that all the prophecies of the OT pass through the will of Jesus. He is alpha and omega. And something that Ezekiel said or Isaiah said is contingent directly on Jesus.
Scout
Scout,
I absolutely agree with you that God is able to interpret and fulfill any prophecy given in the manner which seems best to "him." Literalists have a very hard time with this. We can't pin God down with our expectations or how we have imagined something turning out! God is GOD!
Lonnie asks:
“Will there be sacrifices, offerings, Sabbaths, and Festival Observances in the Kingdom?”
My answer is Yes.
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
"The logic of the book [of Hebrews] is based on ancient rhetorical patterns and pre-modern exegetical principles that makes the reader's task exceptionally difficult" (Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest - Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology, p.141).
2Co 1:20a For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
Lonnie you also wrote:
“I believe that these views are inconsistent with both the theology of the New Testament and a Christocentric interpretation of those Old Testament prophecies.”
I don’t believer that “these views” are inconsistent with NT theology and a Christocentric interpretation of those Old Testament prophecies - they are complementary.
Dt 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Dt 30:8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
While the prophecies are in what is unfortunately called the OT, a lot of the prophecies concern the New Covenant. I would prefer that the books from Genesis to Malachi be called the Old and New Covenant with Israel the Kingdom, or for convenience, if rightly understood, the Kingdom Covenant, as there is so many prophecies of the New Covenant with Israel the Kingdom in these books. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy, in the Law of Christ, there is a promise of the renewing the covenant (Dt 30:1-10).
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
I have asked of you two times in the original thread this question:
“Do you believe that Christ, after his return, will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah?”
So far you haven’t answered my question. I have answered your question I would hope you would answer mine.
Note in 31:31 it is the Lord who says that he will make a new covenant; and the time of making this covenant is in “the days to come” - a messianic formula. So while the Lord refers to God in the absolute/principal sense it is Jesus Christ in the dynamic/agency sense who will renew his covenant with Israel; compare Christ’s NC with Israel the Church - the faithful remnant in Israel.
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
In a previous thread I asked you in essence, though I can’t remember the exact wording, if the Levitical priests would be offering sacrifice in the Messianic Age. You said that you didn’t know, if my memory serves me right.
But your article appears to imply that you do know. “Sacrifices are no longer necessary” would seem to imply that the answer is no.
Looking at 33:14, 17 & 18 we see the messianic formula “Behold, the days come” and “saith the Lord” occurs twice.
From the above the Lord promises that the Levitical priests will be offering sacrifices in the Messianic Age. And then the Lord guarantees it:
Part 2
Jer 33:19 And THE WORD OF THE LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:20 Thus SAITH THE LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
That this refers to the Messianic Age — take note British Israelites — is also seen in these two promises:
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
Jer 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
The Branch is of course Jesus Christ who will “execute judgment and righteousness in the land” and through Him Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely.
If the promise of the reinstitution of the Levitical priests and sacrifices according to Jer 33 is no longer valid with the coming of Jesus Christ; does this advent invalidate the promise to the Davidic kings? If so how does Luke 1:32 fit in? It is a bit strange to make a promise and guaranteed it and not follow through with in the sense that Jeremiah would have understood it.
Lonnie you also wrote:
“Christ's New Covenant makes the old one obsolete.”
Heb 8:8 FOR FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:6b he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Compare Deut 30:1-10 referenced above).
On my journey home from work on Preparation I passed a Mustang of a similar vintage to the one Steve McQueen drove in Bullitt. That model is now obsolete and the new Mustangs, I would presume, have corrected the faults of the 1960s. So while the old Mustangs are obsolete it does not mean the end of Mustangs, but better Mustangs - BB might disagree - it is an analogy. So while the OC is obsolete it does not mean the end of the Covenant, but a covenant with better promises. God and Jesus Christ will fix the fault with the people and then they will know the Lord (31:34).
Anonymous in two parts,
First, let me say that I have tremendous respect for the time and biblical scholarship which you always put into your posts - It is rare among folks who hold your views. Nevertheless, I obviously see these things differently. Indeed, your repeated references to sacrifices in the Millennium is what prompted me to take another look at the Armstrongist assertion that elements of the Old Covenant would return in the future.
I believe that Scripture and history make it clear that the Jews did NOT anticipate God fulfilling the Messianic prophecies in the way that he did. In fact, the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the Jesus Christ event is very different from the way(s) that Jewish folks view those same writings. Indeed, I believe that this explains the fact that most Jews do not accept Jesus as the promised Messiah!
I believe that God instituted a New Covenant in Jesus of Nazareth. I also believe that the book of Hebrews represents the Christian perspective on the tenets of the Old Covenant (as outlined in Torah). I also believe that the book of Hebrews provides the Christian perspective on Jeremiah's prophecy about a New Covenant. In short, I believe that the New Covenant includes Judah and Israel. In other words, I don't believe that God intends to establish another or renewal covenant with the children of Israel at some point in the future. The New Covenant applies to Gentile and Israelite. In this connection, I believe that II Corinthians 1:20 is yet another affirmation that ALL of God's promises find fulfillment in Jesus Christ (as modern translations make clear).
Continued
Like Daniel, I am quite confident that Jeremiah and the other prophets did NOT anticipate or understand how their prophecies would be fulfilled by God. While I'm also confident that they understood how these prophecies applied to their own circumstances and times, their comprehension/understanding of what they had been given for the distant future was both impossible and unnecessary! I believe that is why Peter wrote: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look."
Finally, according to Scripture, God has instituted a number of covenants down through the centuries of man's existence on this planet. As God is love, and love is the foundation of his law, all of those covenants exhibited some similarities. They are, however, distinct/different from each other. Instead of newer Mustangs compared to older ones, I would say that a better analogy would be comparing different models of cars (like a model T compared to a Mustang or Malibu). I hope that this answers your questions about my views and the points which you made in your remarks.
Hi Lonnie,
Thanks for your positive comment on my posts, the spirit behind your post and outlining your position on the new covenant.
As usual we will have to agree to disagree.
I have collected so much information over the years I often find it difficult locate a quote if the quote is filed by subject, with many subjects involved.
To make it easier I occasionally file information by author. To fill up some of the characters of this post there are some quotes below by Donald Guthrie — I have posted most of this info before, but not in this format.
Regards
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
"Such a positive approach to righteousness involves a definite rejection of its opposite, lawlessness (anomia). It is typical of Hebrew poetic style for an idea to be stated, followed by a denial of its opposite. Those who love righteousness have no alternative but to hate lawlessness, and yet only Jesus Christ the Son has ever perfectly fulfilled both objectives" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.77).
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
"The writer is here arguing HYPOTHETICALLY, for the law itself cannot be changed. He has primarily in mind the law affecting the Aaronic priesthood"..." (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.164).
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
"It occurs to the writer that some confusion might arise in his readers' mind over the co-existence of two orders of priesthood. He proceeds, therefore, to show that the priesthood of Jesus was not established on the earth... This leads into his thesis that the superior priesthood is that which operates in heaven, not on earth" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.174-175).
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new [kaine; as in LXX] covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [kaine] covenant, he hath made the first old.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator [kaine] of the new testament
Heb 12:24a And to Jesus the mediator of the new [neas] covenant
"Another feature of the covenant is its application to both Israel and Judah. Historically this involved the healing of the breach which had brought such disaster in the early history of the Jewish people. BUT EVEN IN THIS PASSAGE THERE IS NO HINT OF A NEW COVENANT WHICH COULD EXTEND TO ALL PEOPLE, GENTILES AS WELL AS JEWS, AS HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE GOSPEL. INDEED IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THIS UNIVERSAL ASPECT OF THE GOSPEL FINDS NO PLACE IN THIS EPISTLE, but a sufficient explanation of this would be restricted destination for a Jewish audience. The word for new (kaine) here points to something which is new in comparison with what has preceded it, whereas, the alternative adjective (neos), applied to the same covenant in 12:24, points to its freshness, compared with something old and worn out. Both aspects are full of meaning" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.177-178).
"Here only is the covenant described as new (neas) in the sense of ‘recent' instead of new in the sense of character (kaine), as in 8:8, 13 (from LXX) and 9:15" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p.264).
"... another word (nea) is used which calls attention to the fact that it is recent (i.e., as far as the readers are concerned)" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p.192).
Part 1, 2 wrote: “I don’t believe that “these views” are inconsistent with NT theology and a Christocentric interpretation of those Old Testament prophecies - they are complementary.”
This is a succinct statement of the canonical flaw of Armstrongism. Armstrongists do not see a cancellation of one covenant and its replacement by a new covenant. They believe that Jesus brought us a synergy between the Old and New Covenants with the source of synergy to be found in the Torah. The Covenants may change, in their view, but the Torah remains forever. So, the Torah, made more stringent by Jesus, is written now on the heart of each Christian and the Holy Spirit is given so that what could not be kept by the ancient Israelites may now be kept perfectly. Part 1,2 underscores this by asserting that even the sacrifices and their infrastructure abrogated in the NT will one day be restored.
The idea is that the Torah persists and even the parts that Armstrongists believe to be abrogated (the sacrifices, ceremonies and ministry of death) will be reinstituted. I am not sure how Part 1, 2 would characterize his position. But I see his view as a condemnation of Christianity and only a partial acceptance of Armstrongism. It also adds a new dimension to the huge and sometimes vitriolic debate there is between Christians and Armstrongists about what the New Covenant is. It also asks, how long will the NC, as Christians and Armstrongists know it, last? Does Ezekiel and his temple vision lead us to another dispensation located somewhere in the future?
There are many scriptures that are cogent rebuttals (prominently in Hebrews) of this idea. Moreover, if Part 1,2 is right then all Christians and all Armstrongists will die as heretics separated from grace. Part 1, 2 will have been, when the judgment comes, the only valid believer in God. This is dismaying. The Great God is so powerless that after inaugurating the ekklesia through Jesus and the disciples and working with the church through the centuries, God is going to save only one person – Part 1, 2. He has revealed his truth to only one person – Part 1,2. The theology and exegesis aside, there is something a little odd about this picture.
Scout
Scout,
Part 1,2 quotes many applicable verses while you quote none presuming to know the subject matter.
This is the "canonical flaw of Armstrongism", you say? Foolish one. It is a part of the canon (or, better yet, "prophetic understanding") that we teach because this is what the scriptures reveal. We believe that "Jesus brought a synergy" between the covenants, you say? No, we all know the new covenant is here. But He did bring a synergy between the new covenant and OT laws, which is clearly shown in Mt 5-7. Of course, this doesn't mean that the church gets it right all the time when it picks from the law and re-reinterprets it.
I see you have two categories, one for Christians and the other for Armstrongists. So Armstrongists aren't Christians? You law-haters really hate the law and are jealous of those who do because your own consciences are defiled and insecure, even though you say you are saved by grace.
Poor guy, you are, afraid of being condemned and dying as a heretic, afraid of Ezek 40-48 being fulfilled, afraid of only one man being saved. And why? Because you don't understand a prophecy?
Anonymouis 1:03
Too bad you can't make an argument without going ad hominem. Your Armstrongists brothers must be proud of your spirituality.
Scout
It would be a bit of a worry if I was the only one who believed in the efficacy of Millennial sacrifice; see below.
“Sacrifice is the appointed means whereby peaceful coexistence between a holy God and sinful man becomes a possibility" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.56).
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
Certain sins and severe ritual impurity are dynamic in that the impurities generated by them ‘aerially’ attach themselves to sancta. Since God through Jesus Christ will have a dwelling presence in Ezekiel’s Temple there needs to be the regular cleansing of the sancta to maintain Christ’s dwelling presence in the Temple.
"It has been remarked as a curious fact that of the three temples mentioned in the Old Testament the only one of whose construction we can form a clear conception is the one that was never built (Gautier, La Mission du Prophete Esekiel, p.118); and certainly the knowledge we have of Solomon's Temple from the first book of Kings is very incomplete compared with what we know of the Temple which Ezekiel saw only in vision" (John Skinner, The Book of Ezekiel, The Expositor's Bible, pp.405-06).
Ex 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Ex 3:6b And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
It could be argued that the OT saints had a better appreciation of the ‘dynamic’ Yahweh’s holiness than today’s Christians; perhaps if the holiness of Jesus and the seriousness of sin was more appreciated [something that I continually need to be reminded of] then one may be more accommodating for the necessity of animal sacrifice in the Messianic Age.
The New Covenant Theocracy
Lev 4:30 & 35b Then the priest is to take some of the blood [of the sin/purification offering] with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar ... In this way the priest will make atonement [kaphar] for him for the sin he has committed, AND HE WILL BE FORGIVEN (NIV).
“It would be too much to contend that the OT offer of forgiveness repeated so often in the Levitical institution of the sacrifices were only symbolic and offered no actual cleansing from or removal of sin.
"The only solution is to take the OT and NT statements seriously. We conclude then, with Hobart Freeman, that the OT sacrifices were subjectively efficacious, in that the sinner did receive full relief... the OT sacrifices were not objectively efficacious; but then neither did the OT ever claim that the blood of these bulls and goats was inherently effective...
Phil 3:6b touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
"The efficacy of the OT sacrifices, then rested in the Word of God, who boldly announced that sacrifices done in this manner and with this heart attitude (Ps 50:8, 14; 51:16 [Heb 10:8]; Prov 15:8, 21:3; Isa 1:11-18; 66:3; Jer 7:21-23; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21; Mic 6:6-8) would receive from God a genuine experience of full forgiveness” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards Rediscovering The Old Testament, pp.133-35).
(While Hobart Freeman argues for the efficacy of OT sacrifices he does not use the terms “subjectively efficacious” for OT sacrifices or “objectively efficacious” for Christ’s sacrifice).
Subjective efficacy
Heb 9:13 ... the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh
temporal, finite, external, and legal
Objective Efficacy
Heb 9:14 ... the blood of Christ ... purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God
eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological
Part 2
The terms under each verse are taken from the article by Dr. John C. Whitcomb, entitled Animal Sacrifices in Israel - Past & Future, whitcombministries.org/ Biblical_Articles/Animal_Sacrifices_In_Israel_Past_And_Future.php.
Whitcomb also argues:
"Though commanded by God, animal sacrifices in Israel could never remove spiritual guilt from the offerer. The Book of Hebrews is very clear about that (10:4,11). But it is equally erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to prepare the nation for Messiah and His infinite atonement. Such a view is contradicted by precise statements in Exodus and Leviticus. From God's perspective, this was surely a major purpose in the sacrificial system; but it could not have been their exclusive purpose from the perspective of Old Covenant Israelites...
"Now what does all of this indicate with regard to animal sacrifices in the Millennial Temple for Israel under the New Covenant? It indicates that future sacrifices will have nothing to do with eternal salvation which only comes through the true faith in God. It also indicates that future animal sacrifices will be "efficacious" and "expiatory" only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel. Such sacrifices, then, will not be primarily memorial (like the bread and the cup in church communion services), any more than sacrifices in the age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the understanding of the offerer" (ibid.,).
Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
"Dr. Joe Jordan, director of Word of Life Fellowship, writes: "We also observe that the millennial sacrifices will be more than a memorial. In a theocracy (where the government law is God's law - such as Israel had under the Mosaic law), the breaking of the theocratic law brings temporal judgement (Zechariah 14:16-19) - no rain, famine, illness, or disease. In order to escape the temporal judgement, an animal sacrifice is offered to atone for the breaking of the theocratic law. This will be the case during the millennium where the whole world will be under a theocracy" (Joe Jordan, "The Marvelous Millennium", Joe Jordan and Tom Davis, Gen. Eds., Countdown to Armageddon: The Final Battle and Beyond [Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1999], p. 233), (Animal Sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom, carl-olson.com/correspondence/animalsacrifices_lahaye.html).
Lev 4:365b and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin [hatta’t] that he hath committed
Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment [hatta’t] of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
"punishment: Lit. sin, as in margin of A. V. and R. V., but sin here as manifested in its consequences. Comp. Lam 3:39, where it is literally, a man for his sins" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).
"... the priestly literature is similar to the rest of the Old Testament in using terms for sin or guilt to refer not only to the wrong itself, but also to the consequences of the wrong. For example, the phrase nasa' ‘awon (‘to bear sin') frequently refers to bearing a punishment for some sin...
"As other commentators have noted, then, the connection between sin and punishment in the Bible is so strong that the writers often use terms for sin when referring to the punishment that the sin warrants" (Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement The Priestly Conceptions, pp.12 & 22).
Part 1, 2 8:30 quoted “It also indicates that future animal sacrifices will be "efficacious" and "expiatory" only in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel.”
his is called begging the question. First, the author asserts that the sacrifices will actually be and then the author justifies this presumed existence by asserting what their meaning is because they exist. If I were to read his whole text I might conclude otherwise, but I doubt it.
The author proposes that the sacrifices had an additional purpose that is described in the statement I have quoted above. There is God’s perspective and then, apparently, Israel’s perspective. It is as if he is saying that the sacrifices had a global salvific meaning and a local salvific meaning. The global salvific meaning is rendered obsolete by the sacrifice of Jesus, I would expect. And the local salvific meaning (“expiatory” related to Israel) will persist and be the subject of temple activities in the Millennium.
The simplification of this view is that it models either salvation by works or salvation including works. There is not enough text to make the distinction, but it hardly matters. Jesus is not the complete expiation but human works must be added to his sacrifice. It is alarming that animal sacrifices must be added to the sacrifice of Jesus in order that salvation may be made efficacious specifically for Israel according to this model. But this comports nicely with the Jesus Plus “theology” of Armstrongism. That is, the partial sacrifice of Christ must be augmented by “qualifying for the Kingdom” works in order for the believer to be finally saved at the judgment. In Whitcomb's model, qualifying for the Kingdom will include sacrifices at an earthly temple.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. But your quotations do demonstrate that there is a cohort of people who believe this. And I would imagine that Jesus Plus ideas easily gain traction within the Armstrongist community. So, my view that you might be the only one who believes this is slightly softened.
Scout
Good explanation multi-part man 830.
"Time and place" is the obvious answer here. You can't mix the privileges meant for the church age and apply them to the profane of the millennial age.
Bullinger calls that, not "rightly dividing the word of truth"
"Every man in his own order"!
7:23, the quote that rankles you comes from Whitcomb, not from "Armstrongists" who you like to scoff at. But didn't you read the sentence before this one?
The emphasis should be on the word "ceremonial", since we all know that the blood of animals cannot take away sin.
In the millenium, what will stop someone from offering his best gift?
(Of course at that time there won't be anyone in the kingdom suggesting that that is an attempt at justification by works)
Anyway, aren't you the one who believes Ezek 40-48 is just fantasy?
Post a Comment