The Memorial
View of the Ezekielian Sacrifices
We have seen
earlier that Prabhudas Koshy, together with John Walvoord and most
dispensationalists, believes that the animal sacrifices in the millennium serve as a memorial of Christ’s death,
and do not possess any expiatory value whatsoever. Whitcomb agrees that this is
the prevalent view amongst Dispensationalists,
“Without doubt, the large majority of dispensational premillennialists
do interpret the Zadokian priesthood and animal sacrifices of the millennial
age literally. They also attempt to modify the supposed clash between the OT
prophecies of the New Covenant and the book of Hebrews by viewing these animal
sacrifices strictly as memorials of the death of Christ, like the Church
eucharist of the bread and cup.”[1]
In other words,
most Dispensationalists do not
interpret the function of these animal sacrifices literally. There is no
exegetical basis at all, according to the consistently literal hermeneutics of
dispensationalism, to understanding these sacrifices as merely memorial.
Dispensationalist John Whitcomb concedes that the Ezekielian sacrifices are to
be understood as making atonement if interpreted literally. He writes,
“Ezekiel, however, does not say that animals will be offered for a
“memorial” of Messiah’s death. Rather, they will be for “atonement” (45:15, 17,
20 ; cf. 43:20, 26 ).”[2]
The plain or
prosaic understanding of the Ezekielian animal sacrifices suggests that they are
a reinstitution of the Levitical ritual of sacrifice, which has the legal
function of actually making reconciliation for sin (Lev. 6:30; 8:15; 16:6, 11,
24, 30; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5). Whitcomb elaborates that,
“Animal sacrifices could never remove spiritual guilt from the offerer.
The book of Hebrews is very clear about that (10:4, 11). But it is equally
erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to
Israel
Old Testament
animal sacrifices do possess expiatory value, but this is limited to the
ceremonial, external, and temporal realms. They serve to cover the sins of the offerer, while he anticipates the final,
infinitely efficacious sacrifice of the Messiah.
The animal
sacrifices, however, do not possess
any soteriological value. Only Christ’s death provides atonement for sins in
the eternal, infinite, and soteriological sense.
Contrary to
Koshy’s memorial view, Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20 specifically state that the
sacrifices “make reconciliation” or “atonement” for the people. Beale
emphasizes the fact that “Ezekiel does not call these sacrifices ‘memorials’,
but puts them on a par with the Levitical typological sacrifices of atonement.”[4]
Concerning the
expiatory significance of the Ezekielian sacrifices, Anthony Hoekema writes:
“Even to suggest, however, that these will be memorial sacrifices
violates the principle of the literal interpretation of prophecy. For the
Hebrew word used to describe the purpose of these sacrifices in Ezekiel 45: 15,
17, and 20 is the piel form of kaphar (rendered “to make
reconciliation” [KJ] or “to make atonement” [ASV, RSV]). But this is precisely
the word used in the Pentateuchal description of the Old Testament sacrifices
to indicate their propitiatory or expiatory purpose (see Lev. 6:30; 8:15; 16:6,
11, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34; Num. 5:8; 15:28; 29:5). If the sacrifices mentioned in
Ezekiel are to be understood literally, they must be expiatory, not memorial
offerings.”[5]
It is,
consequently, indubitably clear that Koshy’s understanding of the Ezekielian
animal sacrifices violates the principle of the literal interpretation of
prophecy. According to the plain reading of Scripture, these offerings are not
memorials. They are expiatory in nature and design.
A Hermeneutical
Dilemma
According to
Hebrews 9:23-28, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many.” Why, then, is there the need for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and a
return to Old Testament types and shadows? Despite their insistence upon a consistently literal hermeneutics,
dispensationalists are forced to spiritualize the terms “sin offerings,” “burnt
offerings,” “reconciliation,” and “atonement” used in passages such as Ezekiel
45:15, 17, and 20. They postulate that a “sin offering” is not offered
for sin in the millennium, but is only
memorial in nature.
Dispensationalist
Charles Ryrie, commenting on the literal
hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, writes:
“If literal interpretation is the correct principle of interpretation,
it follows that it would be proper to expect it to apply to all the Scriptures. This, as we have tried to show, is
the reason the matter of consistency in the application of plain interpretation
is so important. The nonliteralist is the nonpremillennialist, the less
specific and less consistent literalists are the covenant premillennialist and
the progressive dispensationalist, and the
consistent literalist is a dispensationalist. . . . In other words,
consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent
literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation,
dispensationalism is more than justified.”[6]
Louis Goldberg goes further, claiming that those who reject a literalistic
hermeneutics are actually imposing their theological framework upon Scriptures.
Goldberg writes that the “two established
rules of interpretation are as follows: 1) “When scripture makes common sense
use no other sense;” 2) “Prophecy . . . must be interpreted
literally . . . The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted
is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious
interpretation of the passage. The desire to bring the teaching of scripture
into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing
doctrine into harmony with the scriptures has kept this practice alive.” The point is that we have to let the prophetic
scriptures speak on their own without reading into them!”[7]
So, in accordance
with Koshy’s, Ryrie’s, and Goldberg’s “literal hermeneutics,” exegetes must
avoid the “desire to bring the teaching
of scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine.” Contrariwise,
we must “let the prophetic scriptures speak on their own without reading into
them.” In order to avoid reading a preconceived theological grid into the visions
of Ezekiel, the dispensationalists must admit that the “literal, normal, or
plain interpretation” of the expressions “sin offerings” and “make atonement
(Ezek. 45:15, 17, NIV)” must mean exactly that – sin offerings for sins, and the
atonement for sins. If the
sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel’s visions are to be understood literally, they
must be expiatory, not memorial offerings.
With regard to the
dispensationalists’ insistence upon a consistently
literal interpretation, Vern Poythress makes an astute, critical observation.
He writes,
“I suspect, however, that dropping the phrase ‘literal interpretation’
might prove difficult for some dispensationalists, because ‘literal’ has become
a watchword or banner. It is a useful
watchword, I suggest, precisely because it can become a vehicle for sliding
into a flat interpretation or plain interpretation when it is convenient to do so.”[8]
Apparently, Dispensationalists
and Bible Presbyterians understand Scripture literally only when the literal,
natural reading of such passages conforms to their theological grid. The
consistently literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalists is “consistently
literal” only when their Dispensationalism allows their interpretation to be
literal. It must, therefore, be agreed that the term “literal interpretation”
is “a confusing term, capable of being used to beg many of the questions at
stake in the interpretation of the Bible.”[9]
Bible
Presbyterian Options
If one rejects
Koshy’s memorial view as being inconsistent with the general tenor of
Scripture, at least two options remain. Ironically, the New Scofield
Reference Bible gives an alternative, non-literal
interpretation of the Ezekielian sacrifices,
“The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view
of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a
presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the
millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were
familiar in Ezekiel’s day.”[10]
Even Todd Mangum,
a progressive dispensationalist, argues for this view, and he prefers to
understand the Ezekielian references to animal sacrifices as “typological
references to the eternal worship of the crucified and risen Lord God Jesus
Christ.”[11]
In response to
such an understanding of the Ezekielian sacrifices by the editors of the New
Scofield Reference Bible, Hoekema exclaims,
“These words convey a far-reaching concession on the part of
dispensationalists. If the sacrifices are not to be taken literally, why should
we take the temple literally? It would seem that the dispensational principle
of the literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is here abandoned, and
that a crucial foundation stone for the entire dispensational system has here
been set aside!”[12]
Therefore, as
Ellison reminds us, “make the sacrifices symbolic and the temple becomes
symbolic too.”[13]
To concede that the
Ezekielian animal sacrifices are typological or symbolical in nature is to
admit, albeit tacitly, that the temple visions of Ezekiel (chapters 40-48) can
be interpreted with the “typo-prophetic hermeneutical principle” proposed by
Mangum and progressive Dispensationalists.[14]
This would result in an understanding of the Millennial Temple
The other option
for Bible Presbyterians is the view adopted by John Whitcomb, but it soon becomes
clear that this view has its inherent weaknesses.
Whitcomb’s View
and Far Eastern Bible College
It is notable that
Whitcomb’s paper, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel ,” constitutes part of the supplements and
syllabus for the course “Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: A Basic
Theology for Everyone Course” organized by Far Eastern
Bible College
Concerning the millennium
temple, Jeffrey Khoo’s reliance upon Whitcomb’s paper is evident in the
following statement:
“As regards the millennial
temple and sacrifices, read Gary Cohen, “Ezekiel’s City: A Millennial Vision,” Zion’s Fire (July-August 1998): 18-23;
Prabhudas Koshy, “The Millennium Temple,” The
Burning Bush (January 2000): 23-31; and John C. Whitcomb, “Christ’s
Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
It is apparent
that Khoo has not arrived at a conclusion as regards the Ezekielian sacrifices.
Koshy’s view contradicts Whitcomb’s view. Nevertheless, both views are offered
to the students of Far Eastern Bible College for consideration. Concerning the Millennium Temple
and its animal sacrifices, one can, however, be assured that students of Far Eastern
Bible College
The Passing of
Types and Shadows
In his paper “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in
Israel,” Whitcomb criticizes Anthony Hoekema for assuming, “along with
many nondispensational theologians, that animal sacrifices in the millennium
would involve a reinstitution of the Mosaic economy, just as if Christ had
never died. Oswald T. Allis, another Reformed theologian, stated, for example:
“Literally interpreted, this means the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood
and of the Mosaic ritual of sacrifices essentially unchanged.’”[17]
Reformed
theologians are in general agreement that the Old Covenant types and shadows,
together with its ceremonial and Jewish peculiarities, have been forever
abolished with the advent of the antitype, Jesus Christ - our Priest, Prophet
and King.
Although Whitcomb
tries to convince his readers that “Ezekiel’s picture of millennial worship and
the Mosaic system which had been established nine hundred years earlier exhibit
fundamental differences,”[18]
Allis is correct to say that such a restitution of ceremonial practices and
animal sacrifices is essentially
similar to the literal restoration of the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical
ritual of sacrifice.
As explained
above, the reinstitution of the Aaronic-Zadokian priesthood, the Jewish Temple
worship, the Jewish rite of circumcision, the Jewish feasts and animal
sacrifices, goes against the redemptive teachings of the New Testament. It
would mean a restitution of the “weak and beggarly elements (Gal. 4:9),” the
types and shadows of the Old Covenant dispensation. The Aaronic priesthood has
been fulfilled by its antitype - Jesus Christ, High Priest of the Melchizedekian
Priesthood. Likewise, the Levitical ritual of animal sacrifice has been
abolished by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our substitutionary
atonement for sin. It is indisputable that the reintroduction of essentially similar rituals and Jewish
ceremonial practices is a retrogressive step towards Old Testament shadowy
forms and typological entities.
Allis answers his
critic – John Whitcomb – with this well-worded paragraph,
“To make use of the “beggarly elements” before the reality had come,
and to do this when directly commanded to do so, was one thing. To return to
them after the reality has come and when expressly commanded not to do so,
would be quite another thing.”[19]
Fairbairn, in his Exposition of Ezekiel, provides Jeffrey
Khoo and the faculty of Far Eastern Bible College with the reasons why a
professedly Reformed institution must not embrace Whitcomb’s view of the
Ezekielian sacrifices:
“The vision of the prophet, as it must, if understood literally, imply
the ultimate restoration of the ceremonials of Judaism, so it inevitably places
the prophet in direct contradiction to the writers of the New Testament. The
entire and total cessation of the peculiarities of Jewish worship is as plainly
taught by our Lord and his apostles as language could do it, and on grounds
which are not of temporary, but of permanent validity and force. The word of
Christ to the woman of Samaria - “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye
shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” - is
alone conclusive of the matter; for if it means anything worthy of so solemn an
asseveration, it indicates that Jerusalem was presently to lose its distinctive
character, and a mode of worship to be introduced capable of being celebrated
in any other place as well as there. But when we find the apostles afterwards
contending for the cessation of the Jewish ritual, because suited only to a
Church “in bondage to the elements of the world,” and consisting of what were
comparatively but “weak and beggarly elements,” - and when in the Epistle to
the Hebrews we also find the disannulling of the old covenant with its Aaronic
priesthood and carnal ordinances argued at length, and especially “because of
the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,” that is, its own inherent
imperfections, - we must certainly hold either that the shadowy services of
Judaism are finally and for ever gone, or that these sacred writers very much
misrepresented their Master’s mind regarding them. No intelligent and sincere
Christian can adopt the latter alternative; he ought therefore to rest in the
former.”[20]
It is clear from
the New Testament teachings that the local churches established and distributed
all over the world have replaced the localized, Jewish worship at the temple in
Jerusalem
Progressive
Revelation and Redemptive Regression
Whitcomb argues that
“after [the Lord] comes, animal sacrifices within a New Covenant structure,
endorsed . . . by the living Lamb of God, will constitute a gigantic step
forward for Israel
He reasons,
“The concept of progressive revelation guarantees that the New Covenant
theocracy will begin with more knowledge than the Church did at Pentecost. Yet
this theocracy will retain its distinctive Israelite characteristics—a promised
land, a temple, appropriate animal sacrifices, and an earthly Zadokian
priesthood . . . These [Ezekielian] sacrifices, illumined by a corporate
understanding of the true significance of the Lamb of God who took away the sin
of the world, will be appreciated all the more for what they can and cannot
accomplish for the offerer.”[23]
As we have
discussed above, these “distinctive Israelite characteristics” are part of the
Old Covenant typological forms, and as such, have forever been abolished with
the institution of the New Covenant administration. In accordance with the
principle of progressive revelation, Whitcomb ought to interpret Ezekiel’s
vision in the light of New Testament teachings. Instead, he attempts to
harmonize apostolic, redemptive doctrines with Old Testament types and shadows.
In so doing, he inadvertently infuses the Mosaic shadowy elements into the New
Covenant dispensation, and perhaps even confounds the teachings of the New
Testament.
Whitcomb contends
that, according to the principle of progressive revelation, “the two witnesses
(Revelation 11), the 144,000 (Revelation 7), and the Zadokian teaching priests
functioning in the millennial temple (Ezekiel 40–48 ) will therefore know
considerably more than John the Baptist, Apollos, the apostle Paul (who
probably never read the book of Revelation), and even the apostle John. They
will know about the full and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. They will
see no conflict between Ezekiel and Hebrews.”[24]
But after making
the point “that millennial Israel
will have the entire NT available to them, including the Book of Hebrews,”[25]
we read in the conclusion of his paper that animal sacrifices will once again
serve as a “pedagogical” or “instructional” resource for millennial Israel
Whitcomb’s
reasoning seems to contradict the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, but this is surely not what he intended
to convey to his readers. If, according to the principle of providential
preservation of Scripture, millennial Israel will have the all sufficient Word of God available to them, why would a
restitution of animal sacrifices be necessary “as an instructional and
disciplinary instrument for Israel?”[26]
The Bible as we
have it today - consisting of 66 books and a closed Canon - is the all sufficient pedagogical resource,
both for the church and, according to Whitcomb’s dispensationalism, millennial
Israel. Reformed theologians have acknowledged that the written Word is the principium cognoscendi.[27]
Therefore, in the spirit of Sola
Scriptura, we have to maintain with the Reformers that Scripture is the all
sufficient revelation of God to man. There is no necessity within the New
Covenant structure for “weak and beggarly elements (Gal. 4:9)” to serve as
instructional or pedagogical instruments.
Reformed
theologians, who acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture, should all the more
repudiate Whitcomb’s reasoning found in his paper.
Whitcomb’s View
of the Ezekielian Sacrifices
We recall that Whitcomb
is correct in stating that the Levitical sacrifices are not merely a symbolical-typological
means of foreshadowing Christ’s death. With regard to animal sacrifices under
the Mosaic order, Kurtz elaborates that “the EXPIATION . . . of the person
sacrificing [the offering] is what we meet with everywhere [in Scripture], not
only as the first intention, but to a certain extent as the chief and most
important end of the bleeding sacrifices in general. When the sacrifice of
animals is mentioned in the law, making
atonement . . . is nearly always expressly mentioned, and for the most part
this alone, as being the purpose, end, and fruit of the sacrifice.”[28]
Likewise, Grabbe
observes that “the text [of Scripture] makes it clear that the blood of the
sacrifices did take away sin (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26 [Eng.
Despite the
inherent expiatory value of the Levitical animal sacrifices, Whitcomb rightly
perceives that even in the Old Covenant economy, salvation was by grace through
faith in Christ alone, and in His redemptive work alone. He explains:
“In the covenant at Sinai, God provided a highly complex and rigid
structure for his “kingdom of priests.” Within that structure,
national/theocratic transgressions would receive national/theocratic
forgiveness when appropriate sacrifices were offered to God through legitimate
priests at the tabernacle/temple altar. This “forgiveness” was promised
regardless of the spiritual state of either the offerer or the priest. However,
such sacrificial blood could never cleanse the conscience or save the soul (Heb
10:1–2), so God repeatedly sent prophets to call his people to love and obey
their God from the heart. Apart from such genuine faith, all the ceremonially
“kosher” animals in the whole world would avail nothing in the spiritual realm
(Ps 50:7–15; Isa 1:12–20; Amos 4:4–5; 5:20–27; Hos 5:6; Mic 6:6–8; Jer 6:20;
7:21–23 ). It was not to be either faith or sacrifices; rather, it was to be
both faith and sacrifices (cf. Ps 51:19).”[30]
Consistent with
the theology of the writer of Hebrews, Whitcomb recognizes the inferiority of
the Levitical ritual of animal sacrifice, and that “all the ceremonially
“kosher” animals in the whole world would avail nothing in the spiritual realm.”[31]
“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away
sins (Heb 10:4).” Neither can such animal sacrifices “cleanse the conscience or
save the soul.”[32]
Whitcomb’s view of
the Ezekielian sacrifices is also more consistent with the literal hermeneutics
of Dispensationalism, especially when compared to Koshy’s “memorial” view.
Whitcomb believes that the Ezekielian sacrifices are not “primarily memorial”
in nature, but serve to provide “temporal cleansing and forgiveness” within the
theocracy of Israel
“Now what does all of this indicate with regard to animal sacrifices in
the millennial Temple for Israel Israel
Whitcomb is
careful to contrast Christ’s atonement for “infinite and eternal guilt” with
the “purely temporal cleansing and forgiveness” provided for by the animal
sacrifices. According to Whitcomb, “what happened [to the offerer] was
temporal, finite, external, and legal - not eternal, infinite, internal, and
soteriological.”[34]
However, the
weakness in Whitcomb’s reasoning lies in his attempt to differentiate “ceremonial
and spiritual atonement.”[35]
In order to avoid the clear theological implications of Christ’s perfect
atonement for all the sins of the
elect, Whitcomb categorizes atonement for sins into two artificial partitions:
ceremonial (or the “temporal, finite, external, and legal” atonement for sins)
and spiritual (or the “eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological”
atonement for sins). He claims that this distinction is “by no means a minor
one, for it is at the heart of the basic difference between the theocracy of Israel
This theological
division of the atonement derives its validity from a strict dispensational,
hermeneutical distinction between Israel
(“the theocracy of Israel
Beale reminds us
that,
“Numerous commentators have pointed out that this [that is, the
restitution of animal sacrifices] would violate the principle of Hebrews: the
Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Christ’s ‘once for all’ sacrifice (Heb.
9:12, 26, 28; 10: 10-18), so that to go back to those sacrifices would indicate
the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for sin (cf., e.g., Heb. 10:18: ‘Now
where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for
sin’). This would appear to amount to a reversal of redemptive history and,
more importantly, a denial of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice.”[37]
Whitcomb reasons
that these sin and burnt offerings in the Millennium Temple do not function “on
the level of Calvary’s Cross,” but yet, on the “quasi-physical” level provide
for ceremonial cleansing and forgiveness. In the conclusion to his paper, he
writes:
“Before the heavens and the earth flee away from him who sits upon the
Great White Throne (Rev 20:11), God will provide a final demonstration of the
validity of animal sacrifices as an instructional and disciplinary instrument
for Israel Calvary ’s
Cross, where infinite and eternal guilt was dealt with once and for all. But
the system did accomplish, under God, some very important pedagogical and
disciplinary purposes for Israel
We note that
Whitcomb quotes Hebrews 9:13 in the aforementioned paragraph. But let us peruse
this passage of Hebrews in its entirety, “For if the blood of bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:13-14)?”
If, indeed, Christ
has perfectly purged our “conscience from dead works to serve the living God,”
why would it be necessary for “the blood of bulls and of goats” to purify the
flesh all over again in the millennium? As we are cleansed from sins in the
spiritual, internal, infinite and eternal realm by the blood of Christ, why
should there be any further necessity for the fleshly, external, finite and
temporal cleansing by the blood of animals?
Within the
administration of the New Covenant, Christians are not required to offer up any
animal sacrifices for ceremonial cleansing. Our sacrifices are now spiritual in
nature (Rom.
Spiritual
cleansing is afforded by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, not by the
blood of animals. Cleansing in the New Covenant economy is from the works of
the flesh (2 Cor. 7:1), not from ceremonial uncleanness. “Indeed, Paul’s
understanding of the beginning fulfillment of the temple described in Ezekiel
37:26-28 involves an ongoing need to ‘not touch what is unclean’ (2 Cor. 6:17)
and to ‘cleanse’ oneself ‘from all defilement of flesh and spirit’ (2 Cor. 7:1;
so also 1 Cor. 6:18-19). Perhaps, Ezekiel’s enigmatic sacrifices also could be
understood along these lines.”[39]
Nevertheless, there will no longer be any need of ceremonial cleansing as
alleged by Whitcomb.
Jamieson, Fausset
and Brown comment,
“His blood, offered by Himself, purifies
not only outwardly, as the Levitical sacrifices on the day of atonement, but inwardly unto the service of the living
God (vv. 13, 14). His death inaugurates the new covenant, and the heavenly
sanctuary (vv. 15–23). His entrance into the true Holy of Holies consummates His
once-for-all-offered sacrifice of atonement (vv. 24-26); His reappearance alone
remains to complete our redemption (vv. 27, 28).”[40]
Whitcomb cannot
escape the theological implications of a literal understanding of the
Ezekielian expiatory sacrifices. In the temple vision of Ezekiel, we read that
the blood of the sacrificial animal will once again be sprinkled onto the altar
of the Millennium
Temple
“Any blood which was sprinkled upon the altar, and therefore “every
sacrifice in which blood was applied to the altar,” was intended as an
expiation; and also, that, as blood was applied to the altar in connection with
every animal sacrifice, expiation took place in connection with them all; and, so far, every kind of animal sacrifice
might be designated as an expiatory
sacrifice. But it does not follow
from this, that expiation was the sole object in every case, or all equally
important object in them all. The words, “to make atonement for him,” are
expressly used, in fact, not only in connection with the sin-offering (Lev. iv.
20, 26, 31, 35, etc.) and trespass-offering (Lev. v. 16, 18, vi. 7, etc.), but
in connection with the burnt-offering also (Lev. i. 4).”[41]
As Christ has made
the ultimate expiatory sacrifice on Calvary’s cross, it is difficult for
Whitcomb to insist upon a reinstitution of such animal sacrifices – which
include the sprinkling of blood upon the altar of the temple - without
sacrificing the precious Reformed doctrine of Christ’s atonement.
Also, a recurring phrase
in connection with both the sin and the guilt offerings in the Book of
Leviticus is, “the priest shall make an atonement for him . . . and it shall be
forgiven him (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35, 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 6:7).” It is apparent
that before any reconciliation can take place between the offerer and Yahweh,
there must be atonement for sin. The atonement for sin must precede
forgiveness; God does not forgive sins for which no atonement has been made. In
a similar way to the Levitical sacrifices, these Ezekielian sacrifices are
undoubtedly expiatory in nature if understood literally, in that they provide
for temporal, ceremonial cleansing and cover for sins. Therefore, such
sacrifices represent a regression towards Old Testament typological, shadowy
forms.
Christ death has
secured for us eternal, perfect atonement not only from all our sins, but also
from all ceremonial impurities. Therefore, being clothed in Christ’s
righteousness, we can “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain
mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16).” We can now, by
virtue of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation, approach the Throne of God, let
alone the alleged Millennium
Temple
The writer of
Hebrews continues:
“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands,
which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the
high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For
then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now
once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment: So Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation (Heb. 9:23-28).”
Christ offered
Himself once, “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In Hebrews
10:12-14, the writer reaffirms our faith in Christ’s atonement for sins, “But
this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the
right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his
footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
We have previously
discussed the theological difficulties encountered when one believes in the
restitution of animal sacrifices. One wonders how Whitcomb reconciles the
“temporal cleansing and forgiveness” effected by the Ezekelian expiatory
sacrifices with clear, NT redemptive teachings (e.g. Hebrews chapter 10)? “He [Christ]
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. 10:9b-10).”
Hebrews 9:13 states
clearly that animal sacrifices “sanctifieth to the purifying of
the flesh”. If Jesus Christ has sanctified the elect “once for
all” (Heb. 10:10), the insistence upon a restoration of animal sacrifice is
tantamount to a blatant rejection of NT revelation. If the exegete is not
cautious, he might even be found guilty of rank heresy, that is, to suggest
that animal sacrifices are necessary for “cleansing and forgiveness” in the
millennium, after Christ “had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever (Heb.
10:12).”
Conclusion
From the New
Covenant perspective, John Frame is correct to observe that,
“The new form of the people of God [that is, the church] involved many
new things. No longer was there a literal tabernacle or temple; Jesus himself
was the temple, and he dwelt, by his spirit, within his people, so that in a
sense they became the temple (John 2:19ff.; 1 Cor 3:16f.; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16).
Nor was the new people of God identified, even roughly, with a particular group
of clans or tribes; it became an international body destined to cover the globe
(Matt 28:19f.). . . . No modern nation, or its government (state), then, will
ever play the distinctive role filled by OT Israel. God’s purposes now are
wider and broader; the whole world is the promised land (Matt 28:9ff.; 1 Cor
3:21ff.; Eph 6:3; cf. Exod 20:12). We need no longer the types and shadows of
the tabernacle and temple, for we have the reality in Christ (Hebrews 8–10).”[42]
A
correct understanding of the New Testament enables us to appreciate the
superiority of the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant administration, we no
longer have to worship in temples made of stone. We are the very temple of the
Holy Ghost, and we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
Neither is there any need of the Jewish sacrificial cult, nor the blood of
innocent animals upon the altar. “When Christ’s blood has been shed there can
be no further sacrifice for sin. For a generation the temple remained while,
beginning in its courts, the gospel of a better sacrifice was preached. Because
Christ fulfilled and did not destroy the law, the disciples did not leave the
temple until they were forced to do so - even Paul worshiped there in a vain
effort to show his continuing love for his people. But the issues were made
plain to that generation and to all that follow. No animal sacrifice can be
offered that is acceptable to God, who has given his own Son as the Lamb. To
offer such a sacrifice cannot repeat or symbolize Christ’s sacrifice, for
Christ has appointed another memorial of his death till he come.”[43]
How can a Reformed
theologian even begin to embrace Whitcomb’s or the “memorial” view of Ezekielian
sacrifices, and yet retain his faithfulness to the Reformed faith? Due to their
adherence to the dispensational sine qua
non, Jeffrey Khoo and Prabhudas Koshy have sadly compromised dogmatic NT redemptive
teachings with the faulty, literalistic hermeneutics of dispensationalism.
Consistent with
the analogy of faith and the principle of progressive revelation, Khoo and
Koshy should understand Ezekiel’s vision with the revelation of Jesus and the
apostles, and not vice versa. Whether
one perceives the Ezekielian sacrifices as merely memorial, or reinstituted for
the ceremonial, temporal forgiveness of sins, one must affirm with the apostles
that there is no longer any necessity of sacrifices for sins, “For by one
offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).” We
must assert that, “If there is a way back to the ceremonial law, to the types
and shadows of what has now become the bondage of legalism, then Paul labored
and ran in vain - more than that, Christ died in vain.”[44]
References
[1] Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[2] Ibid., 211.
[3] Ibid., 208-209. Whitcomb continues, “The
Scriptures tell us that something really did happen to the Israelite offerer
when he came to the right altar with the appropriate sacrifice; and he was
expected to know what would happen to him. What happened was temporal, finite,
external, and legal—not eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological.
Nevertheless, what happened was personally and immediately significant, not
simply symbolic and/or prophetic. When an Israelite “unwittingly failed” to
observe a particular ordinance of the Mosaic Law (in the weakness of his sin
nature [Num 15:22–29], not “defiantly,” in open rebellion against God himself
[Num 15:30–36]), he was actually “forgiven” through an “atonement” (a ritual
cleansing; cf. Heb 9:10, 13) made by the priest (Num 15:25–26).” See Whitcomb,
“Christ’s Atonement and Animal
Sacrifices in Israel
[4] Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission, 344.
[5] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 204
n. 16.
[6] Ryrie, Dispensationalism,
90, emphasis mine.
[7] Louis Goldberg, “Whose Land Is It?,” Issues 4, no. 2 (n.d.); available from http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/4_2/land;
Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, quoting Pentecost, Things to Come, 60.
[8] Poythress, Understanding
Dispensationalists, 86, emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid., 96.
[10] Cyrus I. Scofield, ed., New Scofield
Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 888, emphasis
mine. See commentary on Ezekiel 43:19. This volume, a revision of the 1909
edition, has been edited by a committee of nine leading dispensationalist theologians,
and is therefore somewhat representative of contemporary Dispensationalism.
[11] Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of
Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 13.
[12] Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 204.
[13] H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: The Man and His Message (London: Paternoster, 1956), 140,
quoted in Beale, The Temple and the
Church’s Mission, 344.
[14] Mangum, “Can We Expect a Restoration of
Levitical Animal Sacrifices? A Progressive Dispensationalist Opinion,” 8.
[15] See Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant
Theology, 47. The discerning reader will quickly notice that the
supplementary articles provided are at the very least sympathetic to, and most
of the time defend, the dispensational understanding of animal sacrifices in
the Millennium Temple. Not a single article supplied is critical of these
erroneous views.
[16] Khoo, Hebrews,
35.
[17] Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[18] Ibid., 213.
[19] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 247.
[20] Fairbairn, Exposition of Ezekiel, 440-441.
[21] Ibid., 441-442.
[22] Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid., 217.
[27] Scripture is the “principle of knowing” or
the cognitive foundation of Christians. Epistemologically, the Word of God is
also the principium theologiae, the
foundation for theology and the knowledge of God.
[28] J. H. Kurtz, Offerings, Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament, trans.
James Martin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 66.
[29] Grabbe, Judaic
Religion in the Second Temple
Period
[30] Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[31] Ibid., 210.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid., emphasis mine.
[34] Ibid., 209.
[35] Ibid., 211.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission, 343-344.
[38] Whitcomb, “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices in Israel
[39] Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission, 349-350.
[40] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David
Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New
Testaments, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 555,
emphasis mine.
[41] Kurtz, Offerings,
Sacrifices and Worship in the Old Testament, 73-74.
[42] Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State,”
220.
[43] Clowney, “The Final Temple
[44] Ibid., 189.
No comments:
Post a Comment