Removal Theology not Replacement Theology

[CoreIssue]

My church brother pointed that out recently to me - how can literal Israel (which calls Jesus "The Great Imposter") be the "Israel of God" (which walks according to the rule of being a new creature in Christ) if literal Israel now requires reattachment surgery. Reattachment to what? Spiritual Israel aka the Israel of God aka the church.

Nothing in the bible says "reattachment" or "graft back in."

 

[Phoneman777]

Nothing in the bible says "reattachment" or "graft back in."

??? Romans 11

 

[Phoneman777]

The Church is Israel

Just as the Gentile Ruth, an ancestor of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, could say to the Israelite Naomi: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Ruth 1:16, so Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel. Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12-19, Galatians 3:29
That is: all genetic Jews in the church remain members of Judah or Benjamin, the tribes they were born into. Romans 11:1 And all genetic Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel and so will be assigned into its tribes, as per: Ezekiel 47:21-23, Isaiah 66:21 and as seen by John in Revelation 7:9

So the entire church represents the 12 tribes of Israel. This is necessary, for all those in the church are saved by the New Covenant, which is made only with the Israel of God. Hebrews 8:10

John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of believers who are Gentiles being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the church. God knows who His people are, Amos 9:9, and every believer will be placed in the tribe suited to their abilities and characteristics.
Also, all those in the church, no matter whether they are ethnic Jews, Acts 22:3 or ethnic Gentiles, Romans 16:4b, have become spiritually-circumcised Israelites, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus. Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13

The books of James and Peter are addressed to the twelve tribes, which is the same as addressing people in the church, people with faith in Christ , James 1:3, that is: Christians, people who have been born again in Jesus and who anticipate His Return.
All those in the church, from every tribe, race, nation and language, are spiritually Abraham's seed, by their faith. Galatians 3:29 And Abraham's seed is Israel. Isaiah 41:8-10 So the entire church membership are Israelites of God. Galatians 6:16 This literally means we are the ‘Overcomers for God’, or ‘God’s Victorious people’. Seen in each of the seven Church’s of Revelation and in Isaiah 56:1-8

Not just the Jews in the church, but also the Gentiles in the church, are all spiritually Abraham's seed of promise as Isaac was and as Jesus is the one and only true Seed. And so the peoples of the church, Jews and those from every race, nation and language, every faithful believing Christian is an heir of all the as yet, unfulfilled promises made by God to Israel in all of the Bible: Romans 8:16-18, Ephesians 1:11-14


Zechariah 8:7-8 The Lord says: I am going to rescue My people from wherever they are in the world and I will bring them back into the holy Land, to Jerusalem. They will be My people and I shall be their God in truth and righteousness.
Romans 8:18 For I consider the trials and problems of the present time are not worth the glory that is going to be revealed to us.

Abraham's seed are those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29). Those who occupy the land of ancient Israel today and call themselves "Israel" do not belong to Christ and therefore cannot be the entity known as "the Israel of God" into which God is calling others, grafting into, gathering into, etc. God was through with Israel when the 70 Weeks expired in 34 A.D. and has given the kingdom of God to the Gentile nation "bringing forth the fruits thereof" while literal Israel is still awaiting the Messiah not knowing they already had Him murdered.

 

[Naomi25]

Hey guys. About this discussion, I think the attempt to make the church Israel, or relegate the church to being beneath Israel are both denials of one of the dominant teachings of the New Testament: The Jews and Gentiles both retained their identities, yet were nevertheless one in Christ. Why can't Jewish believers in Christ remain Jews, and Gentile believers in Christ remain Gentiles, and both have a distinct role to play in the unfolding of end-time prophecies?

Hi HIH .
Well...I have two thoughts on this. First, I would ponder at Paul's arguments that in Christ, Jews and Gentiles have become one.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. -Ephesians 2:19–22

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. -Galatians 3:27–29

So, in a very real, clear way...no. There is no distinction between Jew and Greek...not in Christ.
However, one could perhaps argue that this 'distinction' is of a spiritual nature. Yes, we are all equally saved an united in Christin grace...no one is more or less a son or daughter. But there still remains clear differences within that body...as Galatians 3 mentions...while men and women are equal, there are still different sexes, and the roles the bible lays out for us. There are those who will be in positions of authority, and those who must serve. And we also know from Pauls other writings that while Gentiles do not need to 'physically' become Jews, the Jews do not need to abandon their heritage to enter into the new covenant. Meaning, that there would be a difference between how a Jewish believer lived his life and a Gentile one did...even while they worshipped and loved the same Savior. If that makes sense.

So honestly, I think you could argue either way. I think it is quite clear that when it comes to salvation and acceptance before God, we are all one in Christ. Those who come to him in repentance will be saved. That perhaps leaves us looking to other scripture to see what God thinks/plans for National Israel. Which I suppose would lead us to Romans 9-11?

Naomi, I must admit that I find the thought of animal sacrifices being reinstated distasteful myself, but there are several millennial passages which clearly state they will be, and I do not think they can in any way, shape or form be spiritualized away.

But about this question, what is your response to the following:

"The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord. Hebrews 10:1-4 says, “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 year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (NASB).
It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner..."
Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?

I am well aware that the sacrifices didn't take away the OT sins. Nothing but the perfect blood of a sin free person could do that...something that the world did not have until Christ. I would say the bible teaches that the purpose of the OT sacrifices were a reminder to the OT nation of their sins, and that those sins were so grievous in the eyes of God that it took the blood of a 'spotless' sacrifice to erase them. Which of course was prophetic...a shadowing type that pointed forward to Christ and what he would do for them.

This is why I question to reinstatement of the sacrifices in the 'Millennium' (should such a literal time period happen). This period is after Christ's return, and thus should be populated, at least initially, as I understand it, with people who have either returned with Christ, or survived his second coming. This should be a time ruled by Christ in righteousness under God's law. It will be a time of peace, joy and harmony. So how does that fit with dragging animals up to an alter and slitting their throats? Especially when the one who was the ultimate sacrifice is ruling right there? It doesn't make biblical sense, it doesn't make covenantal sense. Everything that we know about why Christ came and died for us, and what he achieved on that cross and rising again for us, tells us that it would be an abomination for such sacrifices to start again in his perfected Kingdom.

I would much sooner believe that Ezekiel 43-46, which most interpreters agree are some of the most difficult passages in the entire bible, are being interpreted incorrectly, than toss out what I know to be true about Christ's once for all sacrifice. It is far too important to read the OT through the lens of the NT, through the work and promise of Christ (as Christ himself tells us to), then to hang my understand of the future on the importance of the literal fulfilment of some OT verse. Or so I believe. I know a lot disagree with me there, and that is their right.

I think...there is room, while still in this age, this fallen, sinful world, for us to potentially see a literal fulfillment of some OT prophecies (like I previously said, I'm still noodling this out), as well as some NT ones. I just think that when Christ returns, by the promises of scripture, his presence dictates that we do not go back to anything that causes sorrow or regret, and that sin and death will be no more. And to be honest, slaughtering animals is still death, is it not? For whatever reason. I just can't see Christ finding joy, glory or honor in that. Did he not die so that we could direct our worship, our praise directly at him, not through the rememberance of a dead animal carcass?

 

[Hidden In Him]

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. -Ephesians 2:19–22

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. -Galatians 3:27–29

So, in a very real, clear way...no. There is no distinction between Jew and Greek...not in Christ.
However, one could perhaps argue that this 'distinction' is of a spiritual nature.

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.

This should be a time ruled by Christ in righteousness under God's law. It will be a time of peace, joy and harmony. So how does that fit with dragging animals up to an alter and slitting their throats? Especially when the one who was the ultimate sacrifice is ruling right there? It doesn't make biblical sense, it doesn't make covenantal sense. Everything that we know about why Christ came and died for us, and what he achieved on that cross and rising again for us, tells us that it would be an abomination for such sacrifices to start again in his perfected Kingdom.

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 would much sooner believe that Ezekiel 43-46, which most interpreters agree are some of the most difficult passages in the entire bible, are being interpreted incorrectly, than toss out what I know to be true about Christ's once for all sacrifice. It is far too important to read the OT through the lens of the NT, through the work and promise of Christ (as Christ himself tells us to), then to hang my understand of the future on the importance of the literal fulfilment of some OT verse. Or so I believe. I know a lot disagree with me there, and that is their right.

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.

I think...there is room, while still in this age, this fallen, sinful world, for us to potentially see a literal fulfillment of some OT prophecies

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...

I just think that when Christ returns, by the promises of scripture, his presence dictates that we do not go back to anything that causes sorrow or regret, and that sin and death will be no more. And to be honest, slaughtering animals is still death, is it not? For whatever reason.

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.

I just can't see Christ finding joy, glory or honor in that. Did he not die so that we could direct our worship, our praise directly at him, not through the rememberance of a dead animal carcass?

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?

 

[brakelite]

REASONS WHY ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE MILLENNIUM IS PROBLEMATIC FOR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

 

[Enoch111]

REASONS WHY ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE MILLENNIUM IS PROBLEMATIC FOR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Not necessarily. Some things have simply not been fully revealed. However, since the New Covenant is embedded in Ezekiel, there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Hidden In Him]

REASONS WHY ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE MILLENNIUM IS PROBLEMATIC FOR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

I read through your link, Brakelite, and he doesn't really seem to add anything to the discussion that hasn't been accounted for yet. At least until he gets to points #8 and 9, which are pretty strange IMO:

8. Jesus is not the priest of God in Ezekiel’s temple vision. The sons of Zadok are.

Interpreting Ezekiel’s temple vision as a millennial temple is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament which reveals that Jesus has an eternal priesthood. The sons of Zadok, were of the tribe of Levi just as the sons of Aaron were, and in Ezekiel’s temple vision they are consecrated in the same manner in which Aaron and his sons were consecrated in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. They also wear the same priestly garments instructed for the priests in the law of Moses. The sons of Zadok are required to follow the same regulations which were given to the sons of Aaron.

Again, it is important to emphasize that the writer of Hebrews tells us that this priesthood has been annulled!

Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that believers in Christ Jesus are the holy priesthood ~ 1 Peter 2:5, and are called a royal priesthood ~ 1 Peter 2:9.

Revelation 1:6, and 5:9 in the KJV says “kings and priests” but a more accurate rendering is a “kingdom of priests.” Those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus are the kingdom of priests who offer spiritual sacrifices to God well pleasing through Jesus Christ. ~1 Peter 2:5-9

Also consider that those who reign with Christ for a thousand years, and are part of the first resurrection are “priests of God.”

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. ~ Revelations 20:4-6

Are these priests who were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, and overcame the beast by their faithfulness to Jesus coming back to offer animal sacrifices? A thousand times, no!

First he claims this temple is in Heaven, and that Jesus is the sacrifice. He then claims the priests of this sacrifice are the sons of Zadoc, but then immediately turns around and says their priesthood has been annulled. ? That's a strange argument. The sons of Zadok were a tribe of Levi, just as he stated. How can they still be operating as priests if their priesthood has been annulled?

9. God never desired animal sacrifices. ~ Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6; Psalm 40:7-9; Micah 6:7-8; Psalm 51:18-19; Hebrews 4:10-9

Animal sacrifices gave God no pleasure because those sacrifices had no power to take away sins. On the contrary, they were a continual reminder of sin: But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. ~ Hebrews 10:3-4

The theology of a return to animal sacrifices would constitute a return to that which never truly pleased God and which God never truly desired. God’s desire is found in Jesus for Jesus fulfilled all the will of God by his perfect submission and obedience to God.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ~ Hebrews 10:5-10

This argument is even more strange. Why would God command them to do something he would not desire? Why would He call the burning of the fat a sweet smelling aroma if He was displeased with it? (Leviticus 3:16).

 

[brakelite]

I read through your link, Brakelite, and he doesn't really seem to add anything to the discussion that hasn't been accounted for yet. At least until he gets to points #8 and 9, which are pretty strange IMO:

8. Jesus is not the priest of God in Ezekiel’s temple vision. The sons of Zadok are.

Interpreting Ezekiel’s temple vision as a millennial temple is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament which reveals that Jesus has an eternal priesthood. The sons of Zadok, were of the tribe of Levi just as the sons of Aaron were, and in Ezekiel’s temple vision they are consecrated in the same manner in which Aaron and his sons were consecrated in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. They also wear the same priestly garments instructed for the priests in the law of Moses. The sons of Zadok are required to follow the same regulations which were given to the sons of Aaron.

Again, it is important to emphasize that the writer of Hebrews tells us that this priesthood has been annulled!

Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that believers in Christ Jesus are the holy priesthood ~ 1 Peter 2:5, and are called a royal priesthood ~ 1 Peter 2:9.

Revelation 1:6, and 5:9 in the KJV says “kings and priests” but a more accurate rendering is a “kingdom of priests.” Those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus are the kingdom of priests who offer spiritual sacrifices to God well pleasing through Jesus Christ. ~1 Peter 2:5-9

Also consider that those who reign with Christ for a thousand years, and are part of the first resurrection are “priests of God.”

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. ~ Revelations 20:4-6

Are these priests who were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, and overcame the beast by their faithfulness to Jesus coming back to offer animal sacrifices? A thousand times, no!

First he claims this temple is in Heaven, and that Jesus is the sacrifice. He then claims the priests of this sacrifice are the sons of Zadoc, but then immediately turns around and says their priesthood has been annulled. ? That's a strange argument. The sons of Zadok were a tribe of Levi, just as he stated. How can they still be operating as priests if their priesthood has been annulled?

9. God never desired animal sacrifices. ~ Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6; Psalm 40:7-9; Micah 6:7-8; Psalm 51:18-19; Hebrews 4:10-9

Animal sacrifices gave God no pleasure because those sacrifices had no power to take away sins. On the contrary, they were a continual reminder of sin: But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. ~ Hebrews 10:3-4

The theology of a return to animal sacrifices would constitute a return to that which never truly pleased God and which God never truly desired. God’s desire is found in Jesus for Jesus fulfilled all the will of God by his perfect submission and obedience to God.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ~ Hebrews 10:5-10

This argument is even more strange. Why would God command them to do something he would not desire? Why would He call the burning of the fat a sweet smelling aroma if He was displeased with it? (Leviticus 3:16).

First, I think you misunderstood him. The find of Zadok aren't in the heavenly sanctuary... Only the high priest, Jesus.
When God said I detested all the sacrifices, this was at a time when Israel had ceased completely to understand the significance of them. While it is true that the sacrifices couldn't take away sin, part of the reason they were instituted, besides indicating that without blood there is no remission, was to set in the minds of the people such a distaste for the sacrifices, they would equally for find a distaste for the sin that made them necessary. Sadly, that was not the case.... So long as there was a get out of jail free card grazing in the back paddock, Israel thought they were home free. Unfortunately, to our shame, some Christians tend to use Jesus the same way. God's displeasure with the rivers of blood reflected his displeasure with the sin and hypocrisy that demanded it. The sweet aroma was the sincere regret and repentance that accompanied the sacrifice.

 

[Naomi25]

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.

 

[brakelite]

pretty close though i guess

"
For a meaning of the name Israel, NOBSE Study Bible Name List, BDB Theological Dictionary and Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) unanimously go with the verb שרה of which the meaning is unsure. Undeterred, NOBSE reads God Strives, and BDB proposes El Persisteth or El Persevereth.

Alfred Jones figures that the mysterious verb שרה might very well mean "to be princely," and assumes that the name Israel consists of a future form of this verb, which hence would mean to become princely. And so Jones interprets the name Israel with He Will Be Prince With God.

Here at Abarim Publications, our contention is that the mystery verb שרה doesn't mean struggle at all, but rather reflects a worthiness to govern a nation. At the Jabbok, Jacob became the world's first godly king and his nation was Israel; God's (Vicarious) Governor.

I see that name change as a reflection of Jacobs change of heart. When asked by the angel, what is your name, Jacob virtually confessed his own perverse character and nature...I am the supplanter. I am Jacob. His name change to he will rule, is a sign he had overcome. It reflects shortish victory over sin. Jesus also overcame. Strived with God and man and gained the victory. The writer's of the NT recognised this.
They also recognised how OT prophecies we fulfilled in the life of Christ... Prophecies that in their original context, referred to Israel.

Mathew in particular showed this time and time again how Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT prophecies which may have originally applied to the nation, but now, according to Mathew’s inspired writings, applied in fact to Jesus. Examples are Hosea 11:1 ; Isaiah 41:8,42:1-3 .

 

[Hidden In Him]

When God said I detested all the sacrifices, this was at a time when Israel had ceased completely to understand the significance of them. While it is true that the sacrifices couldn't take away sin, part of the reason they were instituted, besides indicating that without blood there is no remission, was to set in the minds of the people such a distaste for the sacrifices, they would equally for find a distaste for the sin that made them necessary. Sadly, that was not the case.... So long as there was a get out of jail free card grazing in the back paddock, Israel thought they were home free. Unfortunately, to our shame, some Christians tend to use Jesus the same way. God's displeasure with the rivers of blood reflected his displeasure with the sin and hypocrisy that demanded it.

I agree, but that's not what he is saying. His argument is that "The theology of a return to animal sacrifices would constitute a return to that which never truly pleased God." According to your argument, this would have him saying never was there a time when the Israelites ever offered sacrifices in the proper mindset. And if they never did so, never would there have been a time when the fat was a sweet smelling aroma to Him.

If that was his argument, you do a better job presenting it than he does. He's sloppy, and not just there either.

 

[Keraz]

Isaiah 56:1-2 These are the words of the Lord; Maintain justice and do what is right, for My deliverance is close at hand and My victory will soon be revealed. Happy is the person who follows these precepts and holds fast to them, who keeps the Sabbaths unprofained and his hand from all wrongdoing.

Isaiah 56:3-5 The foreigner who has given his allegiance to the Lord must not say; The Lord will exclude me from His people. The eunuch must not say: I am naught but a barren tree. The eunuch’s who keep My Sabbaths and choose to do My will, holding fast to the covenant, will receive from Me something better than children – a memorial and a name within My Temple. I shall give them everlasting renown.

Isaiah 56:6-7 So too, with the foreigners who give their allegiance to Me, to minister to Me and love My name and become My servants. All who keep My Sabbaths holy and hold fast to My covenant; these I shall bring to My holy Mountain and give them joy in My House of prayer. Their offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar, for My House will be called a House of prayer for all nations. Ezekiel 40-48

Isaiah 56:8 This is the word of the Lord, who gathers those driven out of Israel; I shall add to those who have already been gathered. John 10:16

This Bible passage, written by the prophet Isaiah, gives a wonderful promise to every person – regardless of race, colour or gender. The promise of the Lord, to give them; “Joy in My House of prayer”

In verse 8, it shows that this will happen after all the faithful Christians, [the real Israelites of God] have gathered into the Land. Ezekiel 20:34-35, Jeremiah 30:10 They will be divided into 12 groups, into the 12 ‘tribes’ of Israel.
Also as in verse 7, the Temple will be built by them. Zechariah 6:15


Isaiah 66:18-21...I am coming to gather peoples of every tongue. They will come to see My glory. I shall put a sign on them and will send them to preach the Gospel to all the peoples that have not heard of Me.
From every nation and by every means, My righteous people will come to My Holy mountain, Jerusalem, just as in ancient days, the Israelites brought their offerings to Me. Some of them, I shall take to be priests and Temple Levites. Revelation 5:9-10, 1 Peter 2:5

Some of these; include the 144,000 as mentioned in Revelation. This all must occur before the Return of Jesus. 2 Thess. 1:10…He reveals His glory among His own… Revelation 14:1
Reference: REB some verses abridged.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Did I do better that time??

I think so.

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?

I think this argument hinges on the question of would the apostles have done away with temple worship, the sacrifices, and the observance of the Sabbaths and Jewish Holy days if it had been in their power to do so. And I honestly can't see them as doing it. The Jews actually accused them of speaking against the temple and wanting it destroyed, but that was a false accusation (Acts 6:13-14). Again, all of these things pointed to greater spiritual truths, and it is why early believers continued to observe the Sabbaths and Holy Days, including even the believing Gentiles that were coming to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Colossians 2:16-17).

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.

I dunno. It just seems to be an unnatural mixing of ideas to interpret Ezekiel 43 that way. One minute the temple is supposedly in Heaven, yet verses 7-9 talk about the corpses of kings not defiling it. So that has to get spiritualized away. But then the dimensions of the temple in verses 13-17 are far too specific, so that ought to be taken literally... it just doesn't add up to me. The natural reading is that he is referencing a temple yet to built that will be built on earth, since the specifications are laid out in the same clear terms that the tabernacle and temple of Solomon were.

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.

No, no. It most certainly was a judgment upon Israel. I'm simply saying that the judgment has passed and the Lord has always had their eventual restoration in mind, just as He did when they were in Babylonian captivity.

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.

Well, if you are an Amillennialist then you might not see a break between Armageddon and what happens after a thousand years have passed. But for Millennialists, the "every tear wiped away" verse is set in the time after the Millennium has passed. So are the new heavens and the new earth. About people dying, understand that the Millennialist position is that people will continue to be born physically in the earth just as they are now, with the possibility of being killed, yet with Christ reigning on earth in peace. Those who were beheaded during the end-times will be brought back to life, but they will still exist in physical bodies just like in Paradise, when men lived for a thousand years. As for the rest of those who live during this time, there is nothing to suggest they will do anything but continue to have children through natural child birth, and as such they will exist in the flesh like you and I do, albeit to far greater lengths. It is AFTER the Millennium that the rest of the dead are resurrected, the New Heaven and Earth will come, and there will no longer be any death (Revelation 21:4).

And yes, it is clear that people will still reject him because Satan will go out after the 1,000 years are up and deceive the nations once more. That means humanity will be turned against God one last time.

I personally don't understand the Amillenialist view. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around it. But maybe you could share with me a verse by verse exposition of Revelations 19-21 from the Amillenialist perspective. Not saying I will buy it, but I could at least take a look.

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?

No, no. People like Messianics don't observe Jewish law because they place their hope in the Old Covenant. They do so because the customs are remembrances of deeper spiritual truths. Circumcision I believe represents the cutting away of the flesh, which all Christians are to do when they are born of the Spirit. They are walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh. Same with water baptism. It signifies the death of the flesh, and coming up out of the water alive in Spirit, as from the dead. All the Jewish customs have spiritual meaning.

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?

No, because they will not be a law, any more than Messianics consider them to be a law now. They are simply things they observe that teach spiritual truths.

Paul said those who claimed it a necessity would be better of emasculating themselves!

LoL. That interpretation of the passage in question is a bit dubious in my opinion , but we can talk about later sometime maybe.

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?

Again now, this is not about reverting back to LAW, which is what the Lord was addressing to Peter. Jewish law forbid that he eat those things, but the law was being abolished, and it still is. What I'm talking about is observing them voluntarily, because of the teachings they remind believers of.

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.

You are correct, but these words were spoken regarding believers who were reverting back to Law as something they trusted in to make them righteous before God. I would again take my cues here from the Messianics. Every sect has its false teachers, but I've asked the Messianics at other Forums before if they keep the Sabbaths and Festivals because they believe one must keep the law, and to a man they absolutely deny this. They profess that only faith in Christ justifies, and the same would be the case for everyone during the Millennium.

 

[CoreIssue]

Why will there be animal sacrifices and Feast days and the Sabbath reinstituted in the Millennium period?

There is no earthly Church during the trib or MK. Israel will return as covenant nation under the New Covenant. Law returns and so has the temple.

Jesus said the holy spirit (Comforter) could not come unless he left, which he did.

The bible says the AC cannot be revealed unless the Restrainer(Holy Spirit) is first, removed. So the Church had to go and there will be no baptism of the holy spirit.

You say differently? Where does it say differently than any prophetic passages?

 

[bbyrd009]

Why will there be animal sacrifices and Feast days and the Sabbath reinstituted in the Millennium period?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Why will there be animal sacrifices and Feast days and the Sabbath reinstituted in the Millennium period?

There is no earthly Church during the trib or MK. Israel will return as covenant nation under the New Covenant. Law returns and so has the temple.

Jesus said the holy spirit (Comforter) could not come unless he left, which he did.

The bible says the AC cannot be revealed unless the Restrainer(Holy Spirit) is first, removed. So the Church had to go and there will be no baptism of the holy spirit.

You say differently? Where does it say differently than any prophetic passages?

I don't agree with all the above (especially that the "restrainer" is the Holy Spirit, and He will not be present during the Millennium). But I did find this statement in the link pretty good:

Isa 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. Isa. 66:23 teaches that we will keep the Sabbath, it also teaches we will keep the New Moon festival! This is on earth in the Millennium period - not in heaven.

The idea they would celebrate New Moons in Heaven is so bizarre it would have to be spiritualized. The moon revolves around the earth, and Heaven is FAR removed from it. Unless Heaven is on earth somewhere and we just haven't noticed yet, New Moons being celebrated in Heaven is a really strange concept.

 

[Naomi25]

I think so.

Hi! I hope you don't think that me always disagreeing with you is me getting contentious or something, but, as I am, you are just enjoying the back and forh of ideas here. To be honest, while I don't see all this, I'm hardly going to be disappointed to be proven wrong, am I? Where Christ is, there I will be happy...that sort of thing!

I think this argument hinges on the question of would the apostles have done away with temple worship, the sacrifices, and the observance of the Sabbaths and Jewish Holy days if it had been in their power to do so. And I honestly can't see them as doing it. The Jews actually accused them of speaking against the temple and wanting it destroyed, but that was a false accusation (Acts 6:13-14). Again, all of these things pointed to greater spiritual truths, and it is why early believers continued to observe the Sabbaths and Holy Days, including even the believing Gentiles that were coming to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Colossians 2:16-17).

You can't see the Apostles doing away with sacrifices if they had the choice? How can that be? I can understand and accept them still going to temple 'worship', although everytime they went to temple, we see them preaching to others about Christ, not in old covenant worship with the Jews. And again, they may have kept the Sabbath out of respect for tradition, but we also know they began worshipping Christ on 'the Lords Day'...Sunday. This new Church tradition began with the early Church, who were Jews. And we have Paul telling people that they are now free in Christ, and not to be judged or held accountable over which days or festivals or even Sabbaths' that they kept. In Christ, there came freedom from the old covenant. That meant the freedom the keep those days and festivals if your conscience or delight in the Lord demanded it. That included Jew or Gentile. But it is clearly discussed in the NT, in the new covenant, and there is no expectation that when Christ is actually living with us bodily, that we should return to old covenant ordiances.
This is why I have a problem with sacrifices and food laws, etc. You say they pointed to a deeper spiritual truth...that truth was Christ's sacrifice in our place. To remember, or rejoice in that sacrifice by reverting to practices that were never good enough, and ignoring the perfect, all enveloping one that has come in the meantime, and remembering it in the way he has shown us how to (the bread and the cup), is a little illogical, don't you think?

I dunno. It just seems to be an unnatural mixing of ideas to interpret Ezekiel 43 that way. One minute the temple is supposedly in Heaven, yet verses 7-9 talk about the corpses of kings not defiling it. So that has to get spiritualized away. But then the dimensions of the temple in verses 13-17 are far too specific, so that ought to be taken literally... it just doesn't add up to me. The natural reading is that he is referencing a temple yet to built that will be built on earth, since the specifications are laid out in the same clear terms that the tabernacle and temple of Solomon were.

Well...if the temple is in heaven, the corspses of Kings will definitely not defile it, wouldn't you say!!?
Honestly, I don't know, I freely admit it. But like I said, I would rather look at a passage like that and say "I don't understand something about this passage", then look at the passages Paul, OT and NT authors wrote that say:


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. -Hebrews 8:13

by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. -Ephesians 2:15–16


“For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind. -Isaiah 65:17

To me, these are eminently clear...we shall not go back, because there is Christ. What we have now in Christ is so important...so potent, that going back would be like Lot's wife, looking longingly back at Sodom. No...we look only unto Christ, and his all sufficient work. So sufficient that we need none of those things. We worship directly, pray directly, walk hand in hand with the Spirit.

No, no. It most certainly was a judgment upon Israel. I'm simply saying that the judgment has passed and the Lord has always had their eventual restoration in mind, just as He did when they were in Babylonian captivity.

I tend to agree with you here. It would seem to be almost impossible odds for the State of Israel to be as she is (back again, and so prosperous and powerful in just a short 70 years) without the hand of God on it for some later purpose. They definitely haven't turned to Christ yet...but I believe that they will in ever increasing numbers. Or, at least, I like to think it. It would certainly be an incredible way for God to showcase his power, mercy, promises and glory.

Well, if you are an Amillennialist then you might not see a break between Armageddon and what happens after a thousand years have passed. But for Millennialists, the "every tear wiped away" verse is set in the time after the Millennium has passed. So are the new heavens and the new earth. About people dying, understand that the Millennialist position is that people will continue to be born physically in the earth just as they are now, with the possibility of being killed, yet with Christ reigning on earth in peace. Those who were beheaded during the end-times will be brought back to life, but they will still exist in physical bodies just like in Paradise, when men lived for a thousand years. As for the rest of those who live during this time, there is nothing to suggest they will do anything but continue to have children through natural child birth, and as such they will exist in the flesh like you and I do, albeit to far greater lengths. It is AFTER the Millennium that the rest of the dead are resurrected, the New Heaven and Earth will come, and there will no longer be any death (Revelation 21:4).

And yes, it is clear that people will still reject him because Satan will go out after the 1,000 years are up and deceive the nations once more. That means humanity will be turned against God one last time.

I personally don't understand the Amillenialist view. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around it. But maybe you could share with me a verse by verse exposition of Revelations 19-21 from the Amillenialist perspective. Not saying I will buy it, but I could at least take a look.

Isn't it funny that once we sort of 'land' someplace, it becomes so very difficult to see things differently. I "understand", more or less, the structure of the Millennium...I just don't, honestly, see how it makes sense. I mean...what's the point of it? How is it not a cosmic mess having several different types of 'body types' living and mixing together? It boggles my mind that we have Christ rule and reign for 1000 years, but then people kick him in the teeth again with rebellion! Does that sound like the all conquering mighty warrior that comes back on a white horse? It almost seems like an Earth 0.2 do-over, complete with human rebellion etc, just condensed into a shorter time frame. I mean, sure, I know God could do it all...by why?? For the Jews? Why can't he wrap up his promises by bringing them to Christ in this age, and then in the new age, they inherit everything anyway?

But, I suppose, again, it comes back to how we see the basic structure, or reading of key verses. And surprisingly, Rev 19-20 is only a small part of those. I'll try, when I have time, to put together a list of comprehensive run-through of verses that plot out the 'whys' of Amillennialism if you like...

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi! I hope you don't think that me always disagreeing with you is me getting contentious or something, but, as I am, you are just enjoying the back and forh of ideas here. To be honest, while I don't see all this, I'm hardly going to be disappointed to be proven wrong, am I? Where Christ is, there I will be happy...that sort of thing!

Not a problem by me. I would have it be pleasant conversation with everyone here, but the men have a way of insulting my intelligence sometimes that gets my Irish up. Maybe I should just stick with talking to women.

This is why I have a problem with sacrifices and food laws, etc. You say they pointed to a deeper spiritual truth...that truth was Christ's sacrifice in our place. To remember, or rejoice in that sacrifice by reverting to practices that were never good enough, and ignoring the perfect, all enveloping one that has come in the meantime, and remembering it in the way he has shown us how to (the bread and the cup), is a little illogical, don't you think?

I think our confusion is that you think I'm suggesting they or God would ever endorse returning to the old covenant, which I am not. I'm simply telling you that the reinstatement of observance of the sacrifices, food laws, festivals, etc would serve as reminders of the higher spiritual truths God was all along trying to communicate through them, and not just the truth of Christ's sacrifice in our place. For instance, eating "unclean foods" represented taking within oneself unclean spirits, such as the Gentiles readily did. This our God does not allow, so the laws about eating anything unclean were given to reflect this.

As for welcoming evil spirits within oneself (i.e. jealousy, hatred, prejudice, envy, lust, etc), I certainly still hold this as a possibility during the Millennium, since they will still abide in human flesh, and as I said before that is what opens the door for temptations and jealousies. Only Satan is said to be bound for 1,000 years. Nothing is said about demons being bound with him.

This is just one example of a whole host of truths that are reflected in the Jewish customs. It is not all just about Christ's sacrifice for us.

Well...if the temple is in heaven, the corspses of Kings will definitely not defile it, wouldn't you say!!?

Yes, LoL. But to state they won't defile it when the whole idea of corpses in Heaven is preposterous to begin with sort of makes the saying... superfluous.

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. -Hebrews 8:13

This one is about the Old Covenant, which I agree has been rendered obsolete.

by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. -Ephesians 2:15–16

This is an encouragement to the Gentiles that they need not worry about the OT commandments to the Jews that restricted the Gentiles from being granted full access to God. There existed "hostility" between God and the Gentiles, and because of this they were not allowed into the Inner Court of the temple or they would die. Christ's sacrifice did away with this hostility, making Gentiles and Jews one in Christ through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

“For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind. -Isaiah 65:17

This one's fulfillment will not come until after the Millennium.

Isn't it funny that once we sort of 'land' someplace, it becomes so very difficult to see things differently.

Yes. It takes me a while of study before I can fully make sense of another system. Sometimes terms are interpreted entirely differently and it throws you off. But I'm learning that if you are going to be involved in Christian Forums of any kind, you really need to do it. Otherwise you can't converse intelligently with people who have different perspectives.

How is it not a cosmic mess having several different types of 'body types' living and mixing together? It boggles my mind that we have Christ rule and reign for 1000 years, but then people kick him in the teeth again with rebellion! Does that sound like the all conquering mighty warrior that comes back on a white horse? It almost seems like an Earth 0.2 do-over, complete with human rebellion etc, just condensed into a shorter time frame. I mean, sure, I know God could do it all...by why?? For the Jews? Why can't he wrap up his promises by bringing them to Christ in this age, and then in the new age, they inherit everything anyway?

LoL! No, it's not for the Jews. It is essentially one big training lesson. Throughout history he has defeated Satan and those kingdoms who chose to serve Satan's ends; Egypt and Babylon are good examples. But mankind is very slow to learn. Look where we are going. They are going to challenge Him again, and worse than ever before when the Antichrist finally manifests himself. And the death toll on planet earth when it all goes down will be astronomical. The lesson will be why it is not a good idea to reject the mercy and grace of the True and Living God. Then He will institute a thousand year's peace to show them the wisdom in serving Him and honoring Him as Lord. But in His wisdom, He knows they will still hold some rebellion in their hearts, and forget over that length of time once more the cost of rejecting Him. So He will release Satan one more time to tempt them once more to do what He knows they want to deep in their hearts. The final destruction of Gog and Magog will be the last and final lesson in why it is foolish to rebel against Him, and after this last rebellion no one will ever again be tempted to.

All of human history is being directed towards a single end: The creation of an eternal kingdom that will never fail, never end, and never again be rebelled against.

 

[brakelite]

Why can't Jewish believers in Christ remain Jews, and Gentile believers in Christ remain Gentiles, and both have a distinct role to play in the unfolding of end-time prophecies?

Acts 2:5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven....22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words...36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
After Peter delivered his gospel message, showing all that heard him, Jews from many different nations, that the very Jesus they crucified

was risen thus the Messiah,​

they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?​

Peter said they must repent and be baptised, and further preached many things which Jesus had taught, the result of which was​

the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Added to what??? Israel? No. It was Israel, through their leaders that continued to persecute and denigrate the faith. These were Jews, the apostles were Jews, but they separated themselves from the established religious system, and joined another. This is akin to the last day separation from Babylon.​

I must admit

​

that I find the thought of animal sacrifices being reinstated distasteful myself, but there are several millennial passages which clearly state they will be, and I do not think they can in any way, shape or form be spiritualized away.

There is in fact no real need to discuss the actual validity or the non-validity of the sacrifices at all. Everyone here thus far presupposes the inevitability of a 1000 year earthly kingdom. Because someone says there is such a thing, everyone believes it. On what grounds? I suggest on the same grounds as a presumed 7 year tribulation. One scripture text badly exegeted.