Why will temple sacrifices resume during the millinium?

[Guest shiloh357]

With the blood of Christ being used to cover all "unholiness", there doesn't seem to be, in my mind, a reason to continue with any sacrifices. I see where you are coming from that not all blood atonement was used for sin, but also consecrating inanimate objects. But this wasn't necessary before the fall. Adam and Eve didn't need to consecrate anything. It won't be necessary during the kingdom either.

 

Again, you are the one who has to explain why the sacrifices are there.   The problem is that you are assuming that the blood is making the objects "holy."  I didn't say that.  I am saying that it consecrates them for holy use. It sets them apart for a specific purpose/intended use.   So it isn't that the altar is unholy per se.  The Millennial Kingdom takes place in the fallen world, not in the New Heavens and New Earth.  You are confusing time periods.   And btw, it is not for YOU to decide what is or is not needed.  The sacrifices are there, whether you think they are needed, or not.

 

This is actually a vision to Ezekiel, not a real temple. And until it is a real temple, should it actually be treated as a real temple?

 

It is a vision of a real temple.  There is nothing figurative about the temple or the way it is described.  The point is that it is a temple that WILL be built and sacrifices WILL be done according to God's will.  

 

I don't believe God's intention for this is a physical temple. Mainly because Christ is the temple. "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will build it back up". There is no more need have a physical temple. Think New Testament references about the temple not made with hands.

 

The problem is that you have no reason to believe from the text of Ezekiel that is anything other than a real temple.  If it is not real, then the text of Ezekiel would tell us that it is purely symbolic of something else. The description over eight chapters is far too detailed to be merely symbolism.  You simply have no internal textual indicators available to you to show it is not going to be a real temple. But I would be interested in seeing you try to show from the text that Ezekiel did intend for it to be understood as  a real, future temple.

 

Like I said, I believe Ezekiel's temple is a vision only (with all that entails) and should be treated as such at the moment.

 

 

 

Go and look at all of the other visions in the Bible that were intended only to be considered visions and find any of them that span nine chapters are are full of measurements and physical and territorial landmarks and intricate descriptions like what you find in Ezekiel 40-48.  It doesn't behave like a mere vision that was only to be understood figuratively and you have no textual evidence to present from Ezekiel that says otherwise.

[JesusIsGod7]

I think it's somewhere in Revelation that says the Old Testament will be brought back. So I guess the sacrifice system will be brought back as well.

[mevosper]

 

 

"The problem is that you are assuming that the blood is making the objects "holy."  I didn't say that.  I am saying that it consecrates them for holy use. It sets them apart for a specific purpose/intended use."

Consecrate - to officially make holy through a special religious ceremony.

So if we replace 'consecrate' in your sentence above with the definition we have:

"I am saying that it officially makes them holy through a special religious ceremony for holy use". Sounds like you are trying to get around having to say they are making them holy for a special purpose. Do you want to change  word 'consecrate' to something not so 'holy'?

 

 

 

 

"The problem is that you have no reason to believe from the text of Ezekiel that is anything other than a real temple.  If it is not real, then the text of Ezekiel would tell us that it is purely symbolic of something else."

Not true. Lots of places in the bible ("and the trees of the field shall clap their hands") don't give us a heads up about when we should expect literal or symbolic language being used. Being that scripture is given to men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would take the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret scripture - correct?

 

 

 

 

 

"But I would be interested in seeing you try to show from the text that Ezekiel did intend for it to be understood as  a real, future temple."

This probably isn't really what you meant to say. I'm of the persuasion that this is a vision and should be such. I can easily see how it could be construed as a literal building plan. The "challenge" would be to show that it is a vision only and not intended as building plans for a literal temple. 

 

 

"Go and look at all of the other visions in the Bible that were intended only to be considered visions and find any of them that span nine chapters are are full of measurements and physical and territorial landmarks and intricate descriptions like what you find in Ezekiel 40-48."

I don't see how the length of the vision, or the number of chapters it extends, or even how detailed it is justifies the literal nature or symbolic nature of the vision.  This is an absurd statement.   

 

 

"It doesn't behave like a mere vision that was only to be understood figuratively and you have no textual evidence to present from Ezekiel that says otherwise."

Neither do you have textual evidence that it is God's command to build it. In fact, if you look at the references to the tabernacles of the past: in the wilderness (Ex 25:8), Solomon's temple​ (1 Chron 22:6), and the rebuilding of the temple in Ezra and Nehemiah's time (2 Chron 36:23), you'll notice explicit commands to build a tabernacle, temple, or a "house for God".  No such command to build anything in Ezekiel 40-48.

 

Still just a vision, and should be interpreted as such. 

The kingdom is holy and sacrifices are not necessary. 

[mevosper]

I think it's somewhere in Revelation that says the Old Testament will be brought back. So I guess the sacrifice system will be brought back as well.

 

Reference? There are lots of things somewhere in Revelation.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

"The problem is that you are assuming that the blood is making the objects "holy."  I didn't say that.  I am saying that it consecrates them for holy use. It sets them apart for a specific purpose/intended use."

Consecrate - to officially make holy through a special religious ceremony.

So if we replace 'consecrate' in your sentence above with the definition we have:

"I am saying that it officially makes them holy through a special religious ceremony for holy use". Sounds like you are trying to get around having to say they are making them holy for a special purpose. Do you want to change  word 'consecrate' to something not so 'holy'?

 

No, I would not do that.   I am just saying that these are holy items and they are dedicated to a particular use.  Its like dedicating a church building.  We are not making the building "holy" by doing that.   Honestly, you are trying to split hairs over nothing.

 

Not true. Lots of places in the bible ("and the trees of the field shall clap their hands") don't give us a heads up about when we should expect literal or symbolic language being used. Being that scripture is given to men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would take the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret scripture - correct?

 

When the Bible is using metaphorical or symbolic language it is easy to spot.  .  We can readily understand when Jesus says, "I am the sheep gate" that he is not a piece of wood on hinges. So again, your point really doesn't hold up.

 

This probably isn't really what you meant to say. I'm of the persuasion that this is a vision and should be such. I can easily see how it could be construed as a literal building plan. The "challenge" would be to show that it is a vision only and not intended as building plans for a literal temple.

 

For one thing, it is architecturally sound.  Models have been built of the temple and its precinct.  Secondly, the problem is that lack of any symbolic language or metaphorical references made anywhere in the text.   This is only magnified when you get to the end of the vision and the future boundaries of Israel are marked off by 17 physical landmarks that can be identified today.  Visions that are purely symbolic don't contain geographical information, nor the intricate measurements that we see in Ezekiel.

 

I don't see how the length of the vision, or the number of chapters it extends, or even how detailed it is justifies the literal nature or symbolic nature of the vision.  This is an absurd statement. 

 

My point is that hermeneutically, there is nothing about the vision that makes it figurative or symbolic or whatever.  Hermeneutically, there is only ONE way to see this vision and that it is describing a future temple that will be built.

 

Neither do you have textual evidence that it is God's command to build it.

 

I don't need it.  The onus is not on me to prove anything.   If you can't supply actual textual reasons why the vision must be seen as anything other than a literal future temple, the default understanding of the text is that it is indeed literal.  The responsibility is yours to prove it is not literal.  So far, you can't.

 

Still just a vision, and should be interpreted as such.

 

It has to be understood and interpreted in light of the text itself.  It is a vision but it is not symbolic, figurative vision like Joseph's dream of the stars, sun and moon.  it is not a vision like Peter's vision of the three sheets.   It is a wholly different kind of vision and does not contain any symbolic or figurative references.

 

The kingdom is holy and sacrifices are not necessary.

 

The sacrifices are there, whether you accept that reality,  or not.

[mevosper]

 

Honestly, you are trying to split hairs over nothing.

I hardly think the shedding of blood should be considered "nothing". In fact, as christians, it should be something we understand very clearly. There is a very specific purpose for taking the life of living animals. Whether it be for eating or consecrating.  

 

 

I think I'm done with this conversation. Be lost in your own understanding. One day, I will post why I believe this is just a vision. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Honestly, you are trying to split hairs over nothing.

I hardly think the shedding of blood should be considered "nothing". In fact, as christians, it should be something we understand very clearly. There is a very specific purpose for taking the life of living animals. Whether it be for eating or consecrating.  

 

 

I think I'm done with this conversation. Be lost in your own understanding. One day, I will post why I believe this is just a vision. 

 

I am saying that you are splitting hairs over "consecration" vs. "holiness."   It is a meaningless to split hairs over it.    I would be interested in your post on why you think it is just a vision.  Do that.  Then I will show you why the Bible says your position is wrong.   You can't show it now, and you won't be able to show it then, so it is probably a wise thing to bow out before you dig a deeper hole.

[zhavoney]

I understand that animal sacrifices will resume during Christ's 1000 year reign on earth. Why?

I have been told it is to remember His sacrifice for all, like we do in the Lord's supper (which was to be celebrated until He comes). But I thought that there is no need for animal sacrifices since they cannot make anyone perfect, and it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10, 1-18. V.16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them. Then He adds, Their sins and their lawless deeds i will remember no more. Now where there is a remission of these there is no longer an offering for sin.. NKJV

Does that mean that there will no longer be remission of sins during the mellinium?

Will there be another covenant with the people during the millinium that will again require the killing of bulls and goats?

Or will they just represent gifts to the Lord?.

Please clarify for me the need for animal sacrifices during the mellinium.

 

Animal sacrifices will not be resuming. Ever. The acceptable sacrefice now is the building of the temple of the Body in Spirit and Truth. The righteousness of the Lord is the acceptable sacrefice that will be brought to the Holy Mountain durring the Thousand Year reign of Christ on this first earth.

[Guest]

It's a question that requires an answer especially if there is the shedding of blood in the kingdom. If there is a need for the shedding of blood in the kingdom, then the question is "Why wasn't Christ's work on the cross enough?". I do believe Christ's shedding of blood was enough. John the baptist calls Jesus "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." All the sin of the world. 

 

Like I said, I believe Ezekiel's temple is a vision only (with all that entails) and should be treated as such at the moment. The references back to the Old Testament concerning the consecrating of objects and priests strengthen what Christ's blood did for us. As he was beaten and bruised, his blood was sprinkled all over Jerusalem.  

 

 

Visions Of Joy Unspeakable

 

Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.

 

The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.

 

In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.

 

The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. Zephaniah 3:14-17

 

Then he brought me out to the outer court and led me around to the four corners of the court. And behold, in each corner of the court there was another court— in the four corners of the court were small courts, forty cubits long and thirty broad; the four were of the same size. On the inside, around each of the four courts was a row of masonry, with hearths made at the bottom of the rows all around. Then he said to me, “These are the kitchens where those who minister at the temple shall boil the sacrifices of the people.” Ezekiel 46:21-24 (ESV)

 

Visions Of The KING's Wedding Feast

 

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

 

And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

 

And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. Revelation 19:7-9

 

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the Feast of the Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering. And on the seven days of the festival he shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a male goat daily for a sin offering. And he shall provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull, an ephah for each ram, and a hin of oil to each ephah. In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, he shall make the same provision for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings, and for the oil. Ephesians 45:21-25 (ESV)

 

As I See It

 

And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations. Leviticus 23:21

[Ozzy]

The law of sacrifice has always been apart of the law of the gospel. It is important to note that it was not instituted with the Law of Moses. Remember that way before Moses was around, people like Abraham were offering up sacrifices. It probably goes back all the way to Adam and Eve after they got expelled from the garden. They were most likely taught the law of sacrifice to point their hearts to the Savior, who would be that sacrifice. It seems almost all civilizations and people had some form of sacrifice, even though it was corrupted by their false priests. Sacrifice seems to be in our nature. Anyway, when after Jesus accomplished His sacrifice, the way we remember it is by the bread and wine. At some point, when the sons of Levi return to the gospel, receive their temple ordinances, and are purified in order to perform those ancient sacrifices, they will again do so and it will be a sweet savor unto the Lord.