Certain prophecies
in the Old Testament seem to predict the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple in the
future. Central to the dispensational teaching of a millennium temple is the
prophecy of Ezekiel in chapters 40 to 46. “Besides Ezekiel 40-46, there are
other prophecies in the Bible that talk about a millennial temple [i.e. Isa
56:6-8; Jer 33:15-18; Ezek 20:40; Zech 14:16].”[1]
In his paper The Millennial Temple, Dr Prabhudas
Koshy expounds the Bible Presbyterian understanding of Ezekiel chapters 40 to
46. According to Koshy,
“There are generally two views among Bible-believing scholars
concerning the number of future temples in Jerusalem Jerusalem
Koshy perceives
that “bible-believing scholars” adhere to the teaching that at least one Jewish
temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem
In agreement with
Dispensationalists, Bible Presbyterians believe that during the earthly
Millennium, the Jewish Temple, together with its sacrificial system, will be
re-established. In fact, Grace Theological Seminary Professor - Dr John
Whitcomb - insists that “consistent dispensationalism must teach the practice
of animal sacrifices for a restored and regenerated Israel
Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic
Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, likewise understands that one of the
“characteristics of the millennium” is the reinstitution of Jewish temple
“worship (Zech 8:20-24).”[4]
Consistent with the literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, Khoo
believes that “a millennial temple is described in Ezek 40-46.”[5]
In his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Professor
John Walvoord aptly elucidates the dispensational doctrine of Ezekiel’s
millennial temple,
“In the Millennium, apparently, sacrifices will also be offered, though
somewhat different than those required under the Mosaic Law, but this time the
sacrifices will be memorial, much as the Lord’s Supper is a memorial in the
Church Age for the death of Christ.”[6]
The predominant
dispensational understanding of the millennial animal sacrifices is that, these
animal offerings are primarily memorial in nature.[7]
They serve as a commemoration of Christ’s atoning death.
Prabhudas Koshy,
the Dean of Students and the Lecturer in Hebrew of Far Eastern Bible College,
agrees with this dispensational view. He writes,
“The millennial sacrifices do not save. They function as reminders. They
remind people of what Christ had already done on the cross. Those who object to
a millennial temple believe that the Old Testament sacrifices which have been
abrogated in the church age would never be reinstated. . . . it is not correct
to say that the millennial sacrificial system is exactly the same as that of
the Old Testament. There are similarities and differences. The marked
differences show us that the millennial sacrifices will be unique and distinct
in their features (see Ezek 40:1-46:24; Isa 56:7; 66:20-23; Jer 33:18; Zech
14:16-21; Mal 3:3-4). However, the purpose is the same - not to offer a means of
salvation, but to serve as a memorial of
Christ’s death.”[8]
Expanding upon the
Bible Presbyterian understanding of the Millennial Temple
“What will the future millennial temple be like? . . . There will be
feasts and sacrifices. In Ezekiel 44 burnt offerings and sin offerings and trespass
offerings are mentioned (40:39). The bullock, the he-goat, and the ram are to
be offered (43:19-25). The blood is to be sprinkled on the altar (43:18). The
meal offering is also incorporated (42:13). Morning sacrifices will be offered
daily (46:13). The priests who are Levites are to officiate (43:19). Moreover,
several feasts will also be instituted. The Passover feast will be observed
again (45:21-25), and annually the feast of tabernacles will be commemorated
(45:25). The year of Jubilee will be observed too (43:4-5).”[9]
Hermeneutics
and Ezekiel’s Temple Vision
The
dispensationalist’s teaching of the reinstitution of a Jewish Temple and its
cult of blood sacrifices is, inevitably, a product of its literalistic
hermeneutics. Koshy criticizes non-dispensational exegetes that a symbolical
interpretation tends to ignore the details of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He alleges
that “[non-dispensationalists] go to great lengths to explain away the
measurements and specifications of the temple building. Such a figurative view
seems forced.”[10]
Merrill Unger
similarly argues for a literalistic interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of the
temple, “Ezekiel’s temple is a literal future sanctuary to be constructed in Palestine
Agreeing with
Unger and other dispensationalists, Koshy believes that a literal, natural
reading of Ezekiel 40-46 provides the exegetical foundation for the Bible
Presbyterian doctrine of a millennium temple:
“The fourth temple that will be built in the millennial rule of Christ
is also known as “Ezekiel’s Temple New Testament
Church
But such an
interpretation of Ezekiel’s visions in chapters 40 to 46 is hermeneutically
flawed. Due to the genre of Ezekiel’s visions,
we must not only consider the linguistic and referential levels of
communication, but also the visionary and symbolical levels. A literalistic
hermeneutics might appear to be an adequately objective method of
interpretation. But in the understanding of visions,
the Reformed hermeneutical rule of analogia
fidei, coupled with the principle of progressive revelation, necessitate
the interpretation of highly symbolic or visionary passages of Scripture in the
light of New Testament revelation and teachings.
As mentioned
previously in other chapters of this book, the interpretation of symbolic
elements with the objectivity of clearer passages will guide the exegete in
obtaining a correct understanding of visions and other obscure passages.
Whenever visions are encountered in Scripture, the exegete ought to remember
this axiom in his interpretation: “spiritual truths are framed in terms of
concrete realities.”[13]
By using this axiom, the interpreter will avoid overemphasizing the physical
elements of the vision, and yet discover the spiritual reality within its
symbolical dimensions. Therefore, a more comprehensive and faithful method of
interpreting visions is to understand them
ideationally.
Patrick Fairbairn
elaborates upon this principle,
“It is to be borne in mind that the description [in chapter 40 to 48]
purports to be a vision - a scheme of things exhibited to the mental eye of the
prophet “in the visions of God.” This alone marks it to be of an ideal
character, as contradistinguished from anything that ever had been, or ever was
to be found in actual existence, after the precise form given to it in the
description. . . . [The visions of Ezekiel] presented a vivid picture of what
either then actually existed or was soon to take place, but in a form quite different
from the external reality. Not the very image or the formal appearance of
things was given, but rather a compressed delineation of their inward being and
substance.”[14]
According to
Beale, there are at least four “main lines of interpretation” pertaining to
Ezekiel’s temple vision:
“First, the vision is prophetic of a literal physical temple to be
built in Israel
Beale favors an
ideal approach to Ezekiel’s temple vision, and combines the last two lines of
interpretation in his understanding of the visionary elements. He reasons that
Ezekiel’s “vision likely pertains to the heavenly temple corresponding to God’s
dwelling in the midst of his people, and not in a physical temple.”[16]
He further argues that the broad context of Ezekiel 40-48 points to a
non-structural end-time temple.[17]
This is also corroborated by the descriptions within the actual text itself
(Ezek. 40-48).[18]
With regard to the
physical descriptions of Ezekiel’s vision, Beale contends that “Ezekiel speaks
in the language and images familiar to his audience in portraying sacrifices in
a temple to prophesy about the escalated redemptive-historical realities of
Christ’s sacrifice and the church’s imitation of that sacrifice.”[19]
In other words, a literalistic understanding of Ezekiel’s language denies the
prophet’s intended message of “redemptive-historical realities” which are
fulfilled in Christ and His Church.
Spiritual truths
are often conceptualized ideally within visions, and such visions are not meant
to be interpreted with mere wooden literalism. Therefore, the correct
understanding of such visions would involve the extraction of the underlying
spiritual truths, which is expressly concealed within the physical-historical
elements of the vision. The very notion of interpreting such imagery literally undermines
the redemptive-historical realities contained therein. As we shall study below,
it is theologically difficult, if not impossible, to interpret Ezekiel 40-46
literally.
Ezekiel’s temple
is not a literal temple “made with hands (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11, 24).” For God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing
he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24-25).” Clowney
explains,
“The temple which Ezekiel prophesied is the temple of the
covenant, of God’s presence claiming his people forever. The Apostle labored as
a master builder in that temple, working in gold, silver, and precious stones,
laying no other foundation than the one which God set in place, Jesus Christ.”[20]
The Church is the
temple of the Holy Ghost. Christians are not required to worship God
exclusively in Jerusalem Jerusalem
“Ezekiel prophesies in the name of the Lord, “I will set my
sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…” (Ezek 37:26b, 27).
Paul responds, “. . . we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I
will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall
be my people” (2 Cor 6:16). . . . Do not propose to the Apostle Paul that God’s
holy sanctuary of the last days, begun in the Spirit, will be completed in the
flesh!”[21]
Daniel Block
likewise agrees that,
“It seems best to interpret [Ezekiel] chs. 40-48 ideationally. The
issue for the prophet is not physical geography but spiritual realities. . . .
The prophet is hereby introduced to the theological realities awaiting his own
people. Whereas [Ezekiel] 37:26-27 had spoken of the establishment of Yahweh’s
permanent residence among his people, following their homecoming, the present
vision picks up the theological theme and describes the spiritual reality in
concrete terms, employing the familiar cultural idioms of temple, altar,
sacrifices, nasi, and land. In
presenting this theological constitution for the new Israel Zion temple
of God
In addition to
Block’s understanding of an ideal temple, Beale sees an eschatological focus
within Ezekiel’s temple vision. Beale believes “that [Block’s] view of an ideal
temple could be combined with an eschatological approach.”[23]
Consistent with the principle of progressive revelation, Beale understands the temple city
As Beale maintains,
“The broad structure of the city from [Revelation] 21:12-22:5 is based
on the vision of Ezekiel 40-48. Ezekiel 40-44 prophesies the pattern of the
final temple, and Ezekiel 45-48 primarily depicts the future arrangement of the
eschatological city and the divisions of the land around the temple compound.
Revelation 21:12-22:5 further interprets the yet-future fulfillment of Ezekiel
by collapsing temple, city and land into one end-time picture portraying the
one reality of God’s communion with his people.”[25]
Beale continues,
“If Revelation 21-22 is the fulfillment, then Ezekiel’s temple is not
to be established in a temporary ‘millennial’ period, but in the eternal new
heavens and earth, which is the setting of John’s final vision.”[26]
The strength of
Beale’s interpretation lies in his combined usage of the Analogy of Faith, and the principle of progressive revelation. Ezekiel’s
vision is not merely a “lofty spiritual ideal,”[27]
but also finds an eschatological fulfillment within the Canon of Scripture.
The presence of
God determines the locality of the temple. Redemptive history sees the
development of the Temple
“Thus, the
redemptive-historical development may be explained as proceeding from God’s unique
presence in the structural temple in the Old Testament to the God-man, Christ,
the true temple. As a result of Christ’s resurrection, the Spirit continued
building the end-time temple, the building materials of which are God’s people,
thus extending the temple into the new creation in the new age. This building
process will culminate in the eternal new heavens and earth as a paradisal
city-temple. Or, more briefly, the temple
of God
Problems with
the Dispensational View
The overarching
weakness of the dispensational view of the Millennium Temple
Concerning his
understanding of Ezekiel’s temple visions, Mangum writes:
“In the case of prophetic references to Levitical temple worship,
animal sacrifices, and Jewish festivals, it would strike me as odd for God to
dispensationally retrogress by re-implementing such heuristic devices in the
future. Such a move would seem to me, as well, to go against the arguments
presented in Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews against setting up Jew-Gentile
barriers and against continuing to offer animal sacrifices today.”[31]
The Bible
Presbyterian would do well to reflect upon the following
hermeneutical-theological concerns when exploring interpretative options for
Ezekiel’s temple visions.
Circumcision
If Ezekiel 44:6-9
were to be understood literally, it would mean a reinstitution of the Old
Testament sign of circumcision in the millennial age. “Thus saith the Lord GOD;
No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter
into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel
But the Apostle
Paul warns, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say
unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I
testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the
whole law (Gal. 5:1-3).”
Again in Galatians
chapter 6, Paul reminds us, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk
according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God
(Gal. 6:15-16).”
According to
Ephesians 2:11-21, the partition between the circumcised and the uncircumcised
has been broken down forever, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in
his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for
to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby (Eph. 2:14-16).”
If these last nine
chapters of Ezekiel were to be interpreted literally, the rite of
circumcision would be imperative during the millennium. This would reestablish
that which is forever abolished by Christ our Savior,[32]
and render the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) ineffective.
The Lord’s
Supper and the Passover Feast
In Ezekiel 45:21,
we read that the Feast of the Passover
is literally restored. Observed on the fourteenth day of the first month, it
includes the seven days’ eating of unleavened bread, and the sin offerings of
bullocks, rams and kids. Primarily a commemorative ordinance that reminds the
children of Israel of their
deliverance out of Egypt
According to the
Reformed, Calvinistic view, baptism has replaced the rite of circumcision in
the Church, just as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has permanently
substituted the Jewish ordinance of the Passover Feast. The Lord’s Supper is to
be a permanent ordinance for the Church
of Christ
Christ our
Passover lamb, who is sacrificed for us, has fulfilled the typological function
of the Passover Feast. With the Lamb of God ruling visibly in the alleged
earthly millennium according to dispensational premillennialists, why is there
a need for this commemorative ordinance once again? In the eschatological
millennium, Christ has indeed come.
Allis reasons,
“There is only one memorial feast for believers, since the Cross showed
so plainly the inadequacy of the blood of bulls and goats, and that is the Holy
Supper of the body and blood of Christ, which the Church has observed for
centuries and is to keep “until He come.” The thought is abhorrent that after
He comes, the memory of His atoning work will be kept alive in the hearts of
believers by a return to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the
performance of which is so emphatically condemned in passages which speak with
unmistakable plainness on this very subject. Here is unquestionably the
Achilles’ heel of the Dispensational system of interpretation. Its literalistic
and Old Testament emphasis leads almost inevitably, if not inevitably, to a
doctrine of the millennium which makes it definitely Jewish and represents a
turning back from the glory of the gospel to those typical rites and ceremonies
which prepared the way for it, and having served that necessary purpose have
lost for ever their validity and propriety.”[33]
It is very
unlikely, if not impossible, that the vision of Ezekiel is to be understood
literally as Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians assert.
The Priesthood
Bible
Presbyterians acknowledge that in accordance with Ezekiel’s vision, “not all
Levites will serve as priests, but only the sons of Zadok.”[34]
Zadok was High Priest in the time of King David, the eleventh in descent from
Aaron. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians believe that during the
millennium, the priests were to be from among the sons of Levi, but entirely of
the sons of Zadok (Ezek. 40:46). The ministry of the Zadokian priesthood is to
offer animal sacrifices – that is, burnt and sin offerings – both for the
people and for themselves.
The prophet
Ezekiel writes, “Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at
the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the
people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them. . . . But the
priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary
when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to
minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and
the blood, saith the Lord GOD: They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they
shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my
charge. . . . And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner
court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD (Ezek. 44:11, 15-16, 27).”[35]
Hebrews chapter 5
teaches that Christ is our High Priest “after the order of Melchisedec (Heb.
5:6).” If Ezekiel’s vision is to be understood as foretelling the resumption of
an earthly priesthood and an endless succession of blood sacrifices, our Savior
as High Priest must have failed to accomplish what He set out to do.
We also read in
Ezekiel’s vision that the ministrations of the Zadokian priesthood at the
altar, with continual offerings of animal sacrifices, were “to make
reconciliation” for the people (Ezek. 45:15-17). But Hebrews 2:17 says, “Wherefore
in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people.” It is Christ the faithful High Priest
who had made reconciliation for the sins of the people. If this is true, why is
the ministry of the Zadokian priesthood necessary? Unless, of course, one believes
that our faithful High Priest has failed to accomplish His ministry of
reconciliation.
Again, Hebrews chapter
7 clearly describes the passing of the Levitical-Aaronic priesthood when Christ
our High Priest entered His Melchizedek Priesthood. There exists now a new
order of priest: the Melchizedekan priesthood.[36]
The writer of Hebrews asks, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical
priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was
there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not
be called after the order of Aaron (Heb. 7:11)?”
The book of
Hebrews unveils to us that there is, indeed, no need for the restoration of the
Aaronic-Zadokian priesthood in the Millennium and the cruel reinstitution of
animal sacrifices, together with the incessant flow of animal blood for the
reconciliation of man to God. As the Apostle Paul has declared, “And all things
are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given
to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19).”
If we are already
reconciled to God in Christ, and if believers can now approach the “Holy of
Holies” by virtue of Christ’s death, why is there any necessity of animal
sacrifices and the Zadokian priesthood for worship in the Millennium as alleged
by Bible Presbyterians? Furthermore, the reinstitution of Jewish, temple
worship is akin to the restoration of Jewish ceremonial peculiarities, and the
reimplementation of a divide between Jews and Gentiles. While the New Testament
commands Christians to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24), for “the
hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem , worship the
Father (John 4:21),” Bible Presbyterians would have us believe that we ought to
revert to worship in Jerusalem , and only in Jerusalem ’s Millennial
Temple
Progressive Dispensationalist
Todd Mangum warns:
“Classical dispensationalists [and Bible Presbyterians] would do well
to remember that, at the moment Jesus commended His soul to the Father in
death, the veil of the temple was supernaturally torn in two from top to bottom
(Matt. 28:50-51). Paul explains the significance of this Divine act in Eph.
2:11-22. It took the precious blood of Christ, he says, to tear down this
dividing wall between the “uncircumcised” and “circumcised.” Likewise, the
writer of Hebrews tells us that the precious sacrifice of Christ is what has
given believers today free access to the “Holy of Holies” (Heb. 4). I do not
have the impression that God achieved these things, at such great cost, for a
mere temporary reprieve. A restoration of the Levitical priesthood, however,
would mean that God, in the millennial kingdom, plans to re-stitch this veil
that He previously tore down at such great cost and re-implement a dividing
wall between Jew and Gentile believers.”[37]
Animal
Sacrifices
The most serious
error of the dispensational interpretation is the belief in the reinstitution
of redemptive sacrifices in the millennium. A literal understanding of numerous
passages in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel requires the reestablishment of
“the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering (Ezek.
40:39).”[38]
Consistent with
the dispensational literalistic hermeneutics, bullocks, he-goats and rams will once
again be offered in the Millennium
Temple
Hebrews 10:5-10
elucidates that Christ has, by His First Advent, abolished the old covenant of
legal sacrifices through His atoning death on Calvary .
“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 (Heb. 10:8-10).” If Christ has indeed fulfilled the will of
the Father through the offering of His body “once for all (Heb. 10:10),” why would it be necessary to reinstitute the
Old Testament types and shadows of animal sacrifices within the New Covenant
administration?
In fact, the book
of Hebrews provides an elaborate and theologically complete exposition of the
superiority of Christ’s death. The entire sacrificial ritual of the Old
Testament pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Once His atoning death
had been accomplished, the former typological ritual of Levitical sacrifices
became unnecessary (Heb. 10:5-9). Christ’s single sacrifice for sins is
effective for the elect, and never requires to be repeated.
With the
inauguration of the New Covenant, there is no longer any need of blood sacrifices
(Heb. 10:16-18). The writer of Hebrews proclaims to us that “there is no more
offering for sin (Heb. 10:18),” “for by one offering he hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).” The all-sufficient, substitutionary
atonement for sin was offered “once for all” at Calvary .
Christ’s self-offering is definitive, efficacious, final and complete.
The notion that it
is God’s will to reinstitute the Levitical ritual of legal sacrifice is, to say
the least, a mockery of Christ’s death and passion for His people.
References
Note: Abbreviated references - please refer to full citations in previous blogs.
[1] Prabhudas Koshy, “The Millennial Temple
[2] Ibid., 24.
[3] John Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[4] Khoo, Fundamentals
of the Christian Faith, 136.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 202. Dispensationalist John
Whitcomb, however, disagrees that the animal sacrifices will be memorial. Whitcomb
apparently realizes the hermeneutical dilemma dispensationalists had sunk into.
To be consistent with the “literal hermeneutics”, he had to agree with
critics of dispensationalism that animal sacrifices were not merely memorial or
teaching symbols. Whitcomb writes: “But it is equally erroneous to say that the
sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to Israel Israel Israel
[7] See John L. Mitchell, “The Question of
Millennial Sacrifices,” Bibliotheca Sacra
110 (1953): 248ff.
[8] Koshy, “The Millennial Temple,” 30,
emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid., 28-29.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] Merrill F. Unger, “The Temple Vision
[12] Koshy, “The Millennial Temple Temple
[13] Gentry, He
Shall Have Dominion, 366.
[14] Patrick Fairbairn, Exposition of Ezekiel (Lafayette ,
IN
[15] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the
Dwelling Place of God (Downers
Grove , IL
[16] Ibid., 338.
[17] Ibid., 336-340.
[18] Ibid., 340-343.
[19] Ibid., 343.
[20] Edmund Clowney, “The Final
Temple ,” Westminster
[21] Ibid.
[22] Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48: New International Commentary on the
Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998),
505-506.
[23] Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission, 346.
[24] See Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 346-354. Also study the
parallels between John’s description of the Temple City
[25] Ibid., 350.
[26] Ibid., 351-352.
[27] Block, The
Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, 506.
[28] Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission, 392-393.
[29] R. Todd Mangum, “Can We Expect a
Restoration of Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist
Opinion” (paper presented to the Northeastern Regional Meeting of the
Evangelical Theological Society, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, 30 March 2001), 8,
available from http://www.biblical.edu/images/connect/PDFs/Restoration%20.pdf#search=%22todd%20mangum%20a%20future%20for%20israel%22;
Internet; accessed 11 September 2006.
[30] Ibid., 3.
[31] Ibid., 13.
[32] See Acts 15; Rom. 2:26-29; 4:9-12; 1 Cor.
7:18-19; Gal. 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Phil. 3:3;
Col. 2:11; 3:11.
[33] Allis, Prophecy and the Church,
247-248.
[34] Koshy, “The Millennial Temple
[35] See also chapter 43:18-27.
[36] Also see Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20.
[37] Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of
Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 4-5.
[38] Also see Ezekiel 40:38-43; 42:13; 43:18-27;
44:11, 27, 29; 45:13-25; 46:2-7, 11-15, 20.
[39] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 246.
No comments:
Post a Comment