I had this really crazy thought: is there anything that would preclude the sacrifices in the future Temple described in the latter chapters of Ezekiel to be resurrected? Okay, I'm only half serious. But . . .
I don't understand the sacrifices in Ezekiel. I have to agree with Shmelke and others that they seem sort of foreign to Christianity. After all, the blood is now unnecessary since Christ's blood was shed for all and our High Priest is now sitting down, meaning that the way to God has been permanently made. So what are the sacrifices for?
Some have suggested that they are for memorials. But I'm not comfortable with that explanation, either. Although, that explanation seems more reasonable to believe than that the old Temple sacrifices are resumed for their old purposes, you still are left with basically the same results as the old Temple sacrifices, that is, a bunch of animals killed for sins and the need for a Savior. The problem for me is that I don't see why God would want us to memorialize our need for a Savior when the Savior Himself is sitting there looking on. Wouldn't we, instead, be memorializing His sacrifice and resurrection, which would then point directly at Yeshua sitting there?
So I was thinking, what if the sacrificial animals were not only slaughtered in the Old Testament manner, but were resurrected in the New Testament manner? (Yeah, I'm mixing my symbols, but you get what I'm saying.) Of course the problem is that the text doesn't suggest they will be resurrected. But it never says they won't either. Or does it?
It's a ridiculous idea. And yet, it's the only thing that I can think of to explain those sacrifices. As I understand it, those sacrifices don't really fit well with the Christianity that I know nor the Jewish perspective that people like Shmelke (I miss Shmelke! Where is he?) have tried to explain to me given the context of Ezekiel. So please laugh at my idea . . . but in between guffaws, can you help me understand what Ezekiel is saying about these sacrifices? I still don't get it.
Maybe it is, like someone said, in memory of Jesus' sacrifice or honoring folks like Stephen, Paul, Peter, and other (non-Muslim) martyrs. It could just be also both what I rementioned and food.
I had this really crazy thought: is there anything that would preclude the sacrifices in the future Temple described in the latter chapters of Ezekiel to be resurrected? Okay, I'm only half serious. But . . .
It's a ridiculous idea. And yet, it's the only thing that I can think of to explain those sacrifices. As I understand it, those sacrifices don't really fit well with the Christianity that I know nor the Jewish perspective that people like Shmelke (I miss Shmelke! Where is he?) have tried to explain to me given the context of Ezekiel. So please laugh at my idea . . . but in between guffaws, can you help me understand what Ezekiel is saying about these sacrifices? I still don't get it.
Maybe it is, like someone said, in memory of Jesus' sacrifice or honoring folks like Stephen, Paul, Peter, and other (non-Muslim) martyrs. It could just be also both what I rementioned and food.
But why, in front of Yeshua, Himself, would you offer memorial sacrifices to the martyrs. After all, if they were saints, they will be resurrected at this time. And this is the altar--God's altar. Why would we sacrifice to anyone else or anything else but God on that particular altar?
I'm better with a memorial sacrifice to Jesus. But then, the sacrifice dies and is gone. Our Sacrifice will be sitting right there with His hands and feet pierced, alive. The usual animal sacrifice then doesn't seem to work. If it is true what we say that the animal sacrifice was a shadow of the sacrifice that was to come--which it was--why continue with the shadow after the Savior is with us?
If Hebrews is right and the High Priest (Yeshua) has sat down, meaning that His work is finished forever, why will there be need for sacrifice? Why will there be a need for the Temple, at all? Where do we Christians fit in?
I don't think the end of Ezekiel is symbolic. Or if it is, I don't understand its consistency.
Some things in the Bible are hard to understand; but all things in the Bible are not impossible to understand. The Bible was written for us by God. He wants us to understand. There must be an acceptable answer.
Maybe it is, like someone said, in memory of Jesus' sacrifice or honoring folks like Stephen, Paul, Peter, and other (non-Muslim) martyrs. It could just be also both what I rementioned and food.
But why, in front of Yeshua, Himself, would you offer memorial sacrifices to the martyrs. After all, if they were saints, they will be resurrected at this time. And this is the altar--God's altar. Why would we sacrifice to anyone else or anything else but God on that particular altar?
Not to the martyrs- just in honor of them; but I understand why you were concerned.
I'm better with a memorial sacrifice to Jesus. But then, the sacrifice dies and is gone. Our Sacrifice will be sitting right there with His hands and feet pierced, alive. The usual animal sacrifice then doesn't seem to work. If it is true what we say that the animal sacrifice was a shadow of the sacrifice that was to come--which it was--why continue with the shadow after the Savior is with us?
If Hebrews is right and the High Priest (Yeshua) has sat down, meaning that His work is finished forever, why will there be need for sacrifice? Why will there be a need for the Temple, at all? Where do we Christians fit in?
I don't think the end of Ezekiel is symbolic. Or if it is, I don't understand its consistency.
Some things in the Bible are hard to understand; but all things in the Bible are not impossible to understand. The Bible was written for us by God. He wants us to understand. There must be an acceptable answer.
Well, Job didn't understand everything. Did David? Solomon?
I think we miss a great deal by not being partakers in literal active blood covenants and sacrifice. Lets face it we like our burgers so long as we dont have to witness the death of the steer. As a butcher I'm not to repulsed by the idea as done as a memorial. Weather at the Lords table and or Passover we are suppose to see ourselves as participants in the event but I'm sure thats not the case. Put my burger between the buns and hold the blood.
I think we miss a great deal by not being partakers in literal active blood covenants and sacrifice. Lets face it we like our burgers so long as we dont have to witness the death of the steer. As a butcher I'm not to repulsed by the idea as done as a memorial. Weather at the Lords table and or Passover we are suppose to see ourselves as participants in the event but I'm sure thats not the case. Put my burger between the buns and hold the blood.
My problem is not with the killing of animals or the blood, but with the symbolism. It's not clicking with me. In the case of ourselves, we are "living sacrifices." In the case of God, Yeshua was the sacrifice once for all: there is no other sacrifice by which we are saved.
If the sacrifices in Ezekiel are not about sin, then, what are they about? Assuming the New Testament is true--history and logic prove it is--it should not contradict Ezekiel. At the same time, Ezekiel cannot contradict the Torah. So either something is added to Ezekiel that is a mystery for us still or something is missing from my knowledge of sacrifices, which is probably the case. Are there sacrifices and burnt offerings done for the people that do not involve atonement?
Peace offerings, thanks offerings, and other offerings are mentioned. Also, sharing the offering of our God? What other religion claims a God to share any food or type of drink with?
Are there sacrifices and burnt offerings done for the people that do not involve atonement?
There is no question that all offerings have been satisfied in Messiah. The question is what function would sacrifice play in the millenial kingdom except to serve as a memorial. Its not out of the question. OT sacrifice never satisfied the dept of sin but was rather a sign post {as were blood covenants} leading us to the need for Messiah. Possibly a sacrificial system in the future could be given to highlight Messiahs ministry as well as provide the continual need for individual repentance. God did allow sacrifice continuance in the early church age. Paul had intentions of participating on some level. I'm a bit rusty, however I believe that peace offerings or nazarite vows wouldnt violate Messiahs atonement {provided they remained types with Him as the fullfillment}.
The purpose is to show that God is fully restoreing national Israel to what it was. I read in a book somewhere of the idea of a backwards looking prophesy. It was applied to the Lords supper of Eucharist. The same logic would apply to slaughering rams. The purpose is to force us to not be Amillenial allegorizers. The purpose is there are decendants of Aron who would be totally into this kind of thing because they are wired for it. You know people named Levi, Cohen, Katz, Levinson etc... It will be upsetting to some, but that is the whole point. Your sin makes the innocent suffer, or actually made the innocent Jesus suffer. No sin would be atoned for in it. I think some dispensationalists say the national sins of Israel would be atoned for.
Jesus might not be sitting right there if the end time David Prince is not Jesus. Some see the end time David prince as the vice regent of Jesus during the Millenium. Somewhere in Corinthians one or two Paul says we no longer regard Jesus according to the flesh. Could that me Jesus comes back as fire and not a person (Mt 24:23-27). Would He be like a pillar of fire we followed to Israel? Would He be a wall of fire around Jerusalem (Zech 2:5)? So therefore the reminder of Jesus would be needed?