Hey you!
Well, we are kind of at opposite ends on this one, because I see no difference spiritually but rather all the differences being merely in the flesh. As I stated elsewhere (can't remember where now), they didn't stop identifying slaves as slaves, freemen as freemen, men as men, and women as women. But it was what they were in the Spirit that was more important, and in the Spirit there were no such distinctions.
Hi! Now I'm confused...because I thought that's where I sort of landed! Did I explain it really poorly?!
That in Christ (spiritually) there is neither Jew nor Greek (as per Galatians 3), but we can clearly see that there are differences (in flesh), such a male, female, master, slave (not so much anymore, thankfully), Jew, Gentile (as they live, rather than how they find salvation) that speak to the individual nature of the believer.
Did I do better that time??
I think the argument is that such sacrifices would continue to remind people during the Millennium of how seriously God takes sin: It is the cause of death. And since Christ cannot continue to be crucified over and over again, the sacrifices will be reinstated in remembrance of the price He paid.
I understand that, but I still question it. Consider: in this age, where sin still rules (accept for those who have been set free from it), Christ's coming and sacrifice put a very definite end to the OT 'shadow' sacrifices. The temple curtain was torn, and then the temple itself was decimated.
Christ, before his death, told his people how we were to remember, celebrate and honor his sacrifice. Through the cup and the bread.
So, why would he, on his return, where perhaps it is not completely sin free, but a darn site better than it is now, would he change it back to what it was in the OT? If in the Church Age times the sacrifice was seen as an abomination because it was seen in the light of Christs true sacrifice, and if Christ himself has given us a better way to remember and honor his sacrifice, why would we go back to killing and death...something that his return is supposed to do away with?
Well, but you do have to take both the OT and NT as God's word, and do something with them. One doesn't cancel out the other. Not that I think you deliberately are trying to. But the related OT passages have to be regarded as relevant, and properly explained as such.
Most certainly! But what is the general rule of thumb? We let scripture interpret scripture. And we let the more clear passages help us out with the more difficult. And, as Jesus tells us that everything in the OT was leading up to and 'concerning' him, that is another factor we put into it.
So, I'm just saying that if we think Ez 43 onwards is speaking of this reinstated sacrifices in the Millennium, but everything in the NT tells us that this would be an insult to Christ's work on the cross, both the sacrifice itself and the meaning it had on all his children, forever more, then we must go back and look for another meaning.
As we've previously discussed, in the NT, the 'temple of God' is often used as meaning Christians. We are the temple of God. This notion would have been strange in the OT, as was the idea of the presence of God dwelling inside man as he does in the Spirit. I'm not insisting on this being the interpretation of the verses, so complex and lengthy as they are, a short paragrah could never do them justice, but it's possible Ezekiel is speaking of the amazing new covenant truth that would stretch into the new heavens and earth. Not only does God 'dwell' within our temples now, with us growing every closer to him in praise and honor to his glory, but we know in the new heavens and earth that there will "be no temple, because the Lord God will be the temple", and we will dwell with him, and him with us. The union and unity that God offers to his people is staggering and growing. We know that the OT was a picture of the heavenly sanctuary, where God dwells now. The symoblism and meaning behind all of it is staggering, if you think about it.
You know, as I was reading these words the thought came to me: Maybe it is precisely because Israel and the temple are not yet fully restored that the sacrifices are yet to be as well. God in His foreknowledge knew that the Jews would be scattered and the temple destroyed, so in His foreknowledge the sacrifices were set aside, and no emphasis will be placed on such things until Israel has been fully restored and the temple rebuilt. It would then become an unparalleled proof of Dispensationalism...
You know...maybe it would be proof of Dispensationalism. Despite my heavy reservations on it all, I confess that I watch the unfolding events carefully to see. I think we would be foolish not to, especially when the bible cautions us to keep awake and to watch.
But...having said that, I do wonder...what if the cessation of the sacrifices, the destruction of the Temple were actually God's judgement upon Israel. Plenty of biblical scholars recognize it as such. The curtain was torn, and then years later (years of unrest at the temple, with coups and all), the total destruction of it all. And after Jesus pronounced judgement on it as well. I'm not sure we can say that God is 'only waiting', when it is something he had purposely put aside.
The more I read your posts the more it gets clearer to me. The sacrifices would serve as reminders of the death of the flesh, and not just of Christ's sacrifice. They will be resurrected into physical bodies again, and with that comes the temptations to sin. All the more reason that the Lord return to the same system he employed the last time He ruled over a physical kingdom in the earth.
See, here's where it gets to the point (for me) in regards to the Millennium. Where does it say any of that? What I see scripture saying is that when Jesus returns, death is completely defeated. I see that we are given new, imperishable, spiritual bodies. I see that sin will be no more and that every tear will be wiped away. I see that all things will be made new and the old will pass away. I and see that both good and evil will be judged.
Those are the things the bible talks about happening the moment Christ returns. And all of those things are the ending of this age, and the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth. I see nothing about an in-between age that allows some of the old, with some of the new. A little sin, but some pretty awesome Eden features. Longevity, but still some death. Christ ruling and reigning finally, but people still choosing to reject him all over again.
I see none of that, and can't see a purpose for it either. Sorry.
I understand, Naomi. But you also have to remember that ALL of the OT customs and traditions were designed to teach deeper spiritual truths, and this is why the Sabbaths and Festivals will still be observed. Circumcision will still be observed. I'm guessing dietary laws will likewise also probably be reinstated. Why? Because we are returning to OT law? No. But rather that we are returning to the godly customs laid down in the beginning by the Lord because they all point to great spiritual truths. Every culture has its festivals, celebrations, customs and holy days. What other customs and festivals would we observe if not the ones laid out from the beginning as pointing prophetically to Christ, in whom all things had their fulfillment?
This probably goes back to my previous point, and not really seeing the Millennium at all. But...I'm not sure that, biblically, those things would stand either. Circumcision was a mark on the flesh to signify the old covenant. The new covenant is a matter of the heart, and thus 'circumcision' is done to a person's heart. Why, in the Millennium, would people go back to a symbol of the old covenant? If, in the NT, when a person became a believer and they were not a Jew, they did not have to be circumcised, would circumcision be a necessity in the Millennium? There is no benefit to it, it is just a mark? The true mark, the true benefit, is it's signifying who you belong to, who you follow. And if your heart has already taken that mark, then why mutilate the flesh? Not...I feel I should add, that I think anyone who is circumcised, or chooses to circumcise their son, is bad (I know a lot of people do)...I just think it has become an act of conscience alone, not one of necessity. Paul said those who claimed it a necessity would be better of emasculating themselves!
The Festivals? I can't really comment there.
But the dietry laws? What happened to Christ's message to Peter, that "that which I have made clean...?" Again...do we throw out the NT, and all that Christ achieved for us...that he bought us, just to revert to the OT? Yes, the OT pointed to things...to spiritual things. Those spiritual things were the perfect things we couldn't be, and Christ could be. But now we live in an age where Christ has come, Christ has freed us from those restrictions, that always reminded us that we waited for God's rescuer to come. Why...why, why? Would we go back??? Not only would that be relinquishing the freedom Christ bought for us, but...wouldn't it be rejecting what he did for us? It's like all the verses in the NT that speak of people trying to still live by law, or 'circumcisiom'. It says, "sure, go for it...if you think you can be perfect by yourself. But if you want to rest in Christ, you rest in faith, in belief...that's how you live now". To me, that rejects every notion of going back to any of the OT things.