mark malone wrote:
the sacrices that will be made in ezekiels temple are a memorial and will show clearly- with CHRIST HIMSELF there , what the 'SHADOW' of their meaning is---JESUS the MESSIAH----
the LAW shows JESUS thru and thru---
and with the surviving jews of the tribulation living in the MESSIANIC kingdom---their MESSIAH---they will see JESUS for who HE is and was....
everything in the bible does fit----and when taken in context---makes all scripture reality---not imaginatory...
Wrong Mark. The sacrifices in Ezekiel are not a memorial. And this highlights the fatal flaw in dispensational theology.
This is from my website:
Question 1: How does dispensationalism deal with the references to future "sacrifices" in Ezekiel 40-48 and Daniel 9?
The problem for dispensationalism here is the mention of sacrifices in the prophetic books. In this answer I deal with verses from Ezekiel and Daniel. The reference to sacrifices in these books is tricky because, according to the dispensational hermeneutic of a literal 1,000-year Jewish theocracy with restored sacrifices in a restored Temple, then the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is demeaned and, worse, that two ways of salvation are implied (one through the atonement of Christ, one though the OT sacrifices). Dispensational authors have tries to get around this problem in dispensationalism by saying these sacrifces mentioned are not expiatory (sin-offering) sacrifice, but merely "praise" or "worship" sacricies. As we shall see, this is a distinction that not only exists in the texts, but flatly contradicts the passages which speak of expiation. (Note: the term "Old Testament" is abbreviated to "OT" hereafter.)
If it's a worship sacrifice instead of a sin offering sacrifice that is referred to in Daniel 9 and Ezekiel 40-48, where does that leave dispensationalism's supposed literalism? After all, the dispensational hermeneutic claims to be literal, yet in this instance it must invent a sin-offering/worship offering distinction where none exists in the texts.
Example: Ezekiel 45: 15, 17, 20: the purpose of the sacrifices described here (which dispensationalism ascribes to the Millennium) is the piel form of kaphar which in the RSV means "to make atonement". This is of course the exact same word used in Leviticus and Numbers to describe propitiatory sacrifices. So either these sacrifices are propitiatory, in other words additional to, and thus an insult to, Christ's sacrifice, or else this mention of sacrifices is symbolic, which throws the dispensational hermeneutic out the window. After all, if the sacrifices mentioned are symbolic, why should the Temple be viewed as literal?
Dispensationalism also tries to force this "sin-offering sacrifice / worship sacrifice" distinction onto Daniel 9:27 but this will not work.
It is in fact remarkable that the only Bible version that use the translation "grain offerings" for Daniel 9:24 which dispensationalism points to as evidence the Temple must be restored, is the NASB and the New Life Verisons. Strong's concordance does not list "grain" in this verse.
Strong's Concordance for Daniel 9:24:
sacrifice 2077 zebach a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication a sacrifice
oblation 4503 minchah a sacrificial offering gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice. (emphases in original)
There is no mention of grain offerings here. The attempt by dispensationalism to suggest this passage in Daniel refers to mere "memorial sacrifices" or "worship sacrifices" in a restored temple in the future falls flat on its face when we see that the sacrifices referred to in Daniel and Ezekiel refer to expiatory sacrifices, which have no place after the death of Christ on the Cross.
Dispensationalism simply fails to understand that the purpose of the OT sacrifices was to point to the sacrifice of Christ. When that has been accomplished, there is no more place for the old sacrifices. Why does dispenssationalism suppose the Temple ws destroyed in 70 AD?
Dispensationalism says the sacrifices are to be restored. But if they do not point towards the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, they are an abomination to God. The OT sacrifices did point towards Christ, and were only removed after His Coming.
Not only are the OT sacrifices no longer of use, but they now are an affront to God, Who sacrificed His only Son to accomplish what these sacrifices could never do.
Charles Ryrie tries to get out of the sacrificial-system problem of Dispensationalism vis a vis Hebrews 10:4, which reads
"it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins"
by maintaining that in the Millennium there will be a theocratic system and then sacrifices will be acceptable because Jews will be under "theocracy" (Ryrie "Dispensationalism" page 118-9). This is a meaningless answer to an insuperable problem for dispensationalism and an outright denial of Hebrews 10:4. It does not even address the issue of expiatiory sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48.
Dispensational scholar John F. Walvoord, on page 150 of his book "Prophecy in the New Millennium" proposes "[t]he sacrifices are a reminder of the necessity of the sacrifce for sins" but this too falls badly short of explaining why exactly expiatory sacrifices would be required in a restored Temple.
Why did God destroy the Temple in 70 AD? Are we really supposed to believe that after He has destroyed the Temple He now intends to restore it at some point in the future with its useless and offensive sacrifices?
Dispensationalists cannot come up with a single verse which indicates a future Jewish theocracy worshipping in a restored Temple.
Let's look again at Ezekiel chapters 40-48 which dispensationalists take to indicate a future earthly Temple. In all of the following verses of Ezekiel:
* 44:30;
* 45:1, 6, 7, 13, 16;
* 48:9, 10, 18, 20, 21.
The King James Verson uses the word "oblation". Strong's Concordance gives this word as # 8641 terumah a present (as offered up) espec. in sacrifice or as tribute etc.
the related word teruwmiyah (Strong's # 8642) is used in Ezekiel 48:12.
I have not even begun to address the usage of the term "expiation" in chapters 40-48 of Ezekiel. Memorial sacrifices can in no way be termed "expiations" yet this is what is required by the dispensational belief that these sacrifices must be restored!