Wondering about Tribulation Sacrificial System

[blhowes]

I was wondering about something on the way to work. I've spent my share of years in dispensational churches, and from time-to-time there'd be teachings about the tribulation period, and the re-establishment of the animal sacrificial system was mentioned. I don't know if the sacrificing of animals during the tribulation period is common to all flavors of dispensationalism today..

I was wondering if any of you recall/know about dispensational teaching in this area. Here's what I'm wondering:

1. Is it the believing Jews who set it up, or is it apostate Israel?

2. In the OT, God specifically commanded the nation of Israel to perform the sacrifices. Is that true (according to dispensational teaching) for the tribulation sacrificial system? Or (again, according to DT) is it a man-made idea?

What I'm getting at is (according to dispensational teaching) are the sacrifices being performed with God's blessing?

 

[JBaldwin]

It is my understanding from the teaching I had in my years in dispensationism that the sacrificial system was set up, but without God's blessing since Christ has already completed the work and that the devout Jews (not believing Jews) will set it up.

I'll add to this discussion by asking, what is the reformed view of these sacrifices and the rebuilding of the temple?

 

[BobVigneault]

The Dispensational does see it as having God's blessing because they view it's purpose as being memorial much like many view the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The sacrifice looks back to Christ's sacrifice and reminds us that he has made a way.

Backwards thinking? Well YEAH.

 

[LawrenceU]

I've never been a dispensationalist, but I have heard both the view that Bob mentioned and the view that the sacrifices were pleasing to God and efficacious for the Jews because they are still under the Mosaic covenant.

Frankly the whole thing makes no sense to me at all. And, I have tried to make it make sense in the past.

 

[Kim G]

I've been in three Dispensational churches in the last ten years (due to moves for school, marriage, etc.), and in all three churches, we had a study on Revelation. What I learned is that the sacrifices taking place during the tribulation were not done with God's blessing because the Jews were unbelieving. However, I was taught that the sacrifices will continue through the millennium by Christians as a memorial to Christ's sacrifice, and that they would have God's blessing.

Praise God for delivering me from such thinking.

 

[toddpedlar]

The severeity of this error, whether the sacrifices are spoken of as merely 'memorial' or as efficacious cannot be underestimated. Christ satisfied ALL the ceremonial Law of the Jews - to resurrect those ceremonies in any capacity is to denigrate His sacrifice on the cross, and to call His work and the provision of God for sin into question. This, too, to piggy back on another thread, means that the ceremonial feasts of the Jews are not to be practiced, either. All those ceremonies of the Jews have been fulfilled in Christ, from Passover to the sacrifices to the Feast of the Tabernacles.

In teaching that the sacrifices will someday be revived, the dispensationalist churches err in this way - by doing grave disservice to Christ and dishonor to His atoning work, which is and was the only true and final sacrifice. See Hebrews. In teaching that the feasts should be continued as memorials, and as having some sort of churchly benefit, these and other churches also err gravely, as the feasts, too have been fulfilled completely in Christ - and must be left to Jewish practices that are dead and gone.

The Bible commands just two sacraments - two churchly ordinances, ordained of God for the church to practice until He comes again... these are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These and only these are blessed and commanded by God.

 

[blhowes]

Thanks for your responses.

Somehow, if its as Kim G and JBaldwin said, set up by unbelieving Jews without God's blessing, its easier to accept the idea (though not agreeing with it) than if it were set up by believing Jews with God's blessing.

I can't remember being taught that the sacrifices were to continue into the millennium. Off the top of my head, I would have thought that not to be the case, in light of their interpretation of Daniel 9:27. I think I was taught the sacrifices stopped mid-way through the tribulation.

 

[BobVigneault]

Yes, as I recall in the Left Behind series, world emperor and antichrist, Nicholas Carpathia responded to the outcry of the animal rights groups and outlawed animal sacrifice. It was half way through the tribulation period.

 

[Kim G]

I think I was taught the sacrifices stopped mid-way through the tribulation.

I was, too. But then they are supposedly re-reinstituted at the second coming and are continued throughout the millennium.

 

[Herald]

This is where a hard word-for-word literal interpretation runs into problems. But trust me, when you're in the dispensational system it's nearly impossible to see this major disconnect. This sort of thing had me in its grip. I look back and go only shake my head incredulously.

 

[CharlieJ]

The severeity of this error, whether the sacrifices are spoken of as merely 'memorial' or as efficacious cannot be underestimated. Christ satisfied ALL the ceremonial Law of the Jews - to resurrect those ceremonies in any capacity is to denigrate His sacrifice on the cross, and to call His work and the provision of God for sin into question. This, too, to piggy back on another thread, means that the ceremonial feasts of the Jews are not to be practiced, either. All those ceremonies of the Jews have been fulfilled in Christ, from Passover to the sacrifices to the Feast of the Tabernacles.

I believe some moderation, or at least refinement, of this position is necessary. Jesus' fulfillment of the ceremonies does not seem to have immediately made all these things sinful. For example, the early church for a great while seems to have still gone to synagogue on Saturday while worshipping on Sunday. Also, Paul seems to celebrate, or at least recognize, Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8). Acts 21:19-26 records Paul and some men taking a vow and bringing an offering to the temple. The purpose of this vow to reaffirm his commitment to the law, was it not? Again, Paul had Timothy circumcised even though the time of circumcision had passed (Acts 16:3).

The New Testament seems to regard some of these things as adiaphora (Rom. 14:5?). May a person circumcise their child (or their missionary partner)? If they wish. Does it mean anything? Not in the sense that it did. May a person celebrate a Jewish feast? I think so, as long as they recognize that it is now simply a cultural rather than a religious ceremony. So, I disagree with your phrase "in any capacity." However, if any person attaches God's commandment or present religious significance to any of those things, then I stand by you firmly in condemning that as going back to the bondage of the Old Covenant.

 

[CDM]

The Dispensational does see it as having God's blessing because they view it's purpose as being memorial much like many view the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The sacrifice looks back to Christ's sacrifice and reminds us that he has made a way.

Backwards thinking? Well YEAH.

Correct. But note this is a relatively new concept (after the heavy concentrated criticisms from the Reformed and others). See the NEW Scofield Reference Bible for the 'animal sacrifice is not for atoning for sins' teaching.

If you look it up in the 'old' Scofield it explicitly teaches Christ and his saints set up animal sacrifices again for sin atonement.

…which is a repugnant, Christ-mocking heresy of monumental proportions.

 

[toddpedlar]

The severeity of this error, whether the sacrifices are spoken of as merely 'memorial' or as efficacious cannot be underestimated. Christ satisfied ALL the ceremonial Law of the Jews - to resurrect those ceremonies in any capacity is to denigrate His sacrifice on the cross, and to call His work and the provision of God for sin into question. This, too, to piggy back on another thread, means that the ceremonial feasts of the Jews are not to be practiced, either. All those ceremonies of the Jews have been fulfilled in Christ, from Passover to the sacrifices to the Feast of the Tabernacles.

I believe some moderation, or at least refinement, of this position is necessary. Jesus' fulfillment of the ceremonies does not seem to have immediately made all these things sinful. For example, the early church for a great while seems to have still gone to synagogue on Saturday while worshipping on Sunday. Also, Paul seems to celebrate, or at least recognize, Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8). Acts 21:19-26 records Paul and some men taking a vow and bringing an offering to the temple. The purpose of this vow to reaffirm his commitment to the law, was it not? Again, Paul had Timothy circumcised even though the time of circumcision had passed (Acts 16:3).

The New Testament seems to regard some of these things as adiaphora (Rom. 14:5?). May a person circumcise their child (or their missionary partner)? If they wish. Does it mean anything? Not in the sense that it did. May a person celebrate a Jewish feast? I think so, as long as they recognize that it is now simply a cultural rather than a religious ceremony. So, I disagree with your phrase "in any capacity." However, if any person attaches God's commandment or present religious significance to any of those things, then I stand by you firmly in condemning that as going back to the bondage of the Old Covenant.

May a couple circumcise? Not if there is any religious significance to it - to attribute any efficacy of any kind to the ceremony, forget it.

The problem you note about the feasts having any religious significance is actually what I was getting at by saying "in any capacity". A church, in my opinion, may NOT celebrate these things with any binding of conscience of the membership to attend them. It is clearly sinful for a church to make the feast celebrations stated meetings akin to Lord's Day worship. Some churches do practice the feasts in this way, and it is utterly impossible to square that practice with Scripture.

I'm also speaking of something more subtle. To bring the feasts into the church as a practice tied to the Jewish calendar, even if one says "we're just doing this, you aren't required to come", it seems to me, constitutes a conscience-binding action. It's not just a mere act, anymore, but because the church is celebrating it as an official function.

May a person individually celebrate a Jewish feast? I suppose there's nothing that says they cannot - but it must be recognized that there is no particular religious significance to it. Private practices of devotion are just that - and if one undertakes such a practice, it must be done with the appropriate understanding that Christ has fulfilled everything foretold and foreshadowed in that practice. I just don't see any reason why one would want to re-enact things that Christ did away with, but others clearly feel differently. I've simply never met anyone who privately practices the Passover or other feasts without attaching high religious significance to them as though their act of devotion in that feast was a) connecting them to the Jewish people, b) exciting a higher degree of religious commitment than other private acts like prayer and private fasting. There is in my experience always some kind of 'special' religious quality with the assumption that they're particularly glorifying God in a way that they wouldn't be if they were 'merely' praying or meditating on the Scriptures.

 

[CharlieJ]

Todd, I think we're basically in agreement. I used to participate in a group called Friends of Israel, which is obsessed with all things Judaic, so I definitely recognize what you're talking about. I once watched a reenacted 1st-century seder as a matter of historical curiosity, just as if I were watching a documentary on 1st century Roman customs. I think that was helpful to me. On the other hand, I once had a pastor invite me to celebrate Passover at his house. I declined the offer, as I believe that would have been giving religious significance to the event itself.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Many criticize dispensational premillennialism for its uniquely Jewish character of the Millennial Kingdom. Specifically for anticipating the rebuilding of the Hebrew Temple and the offering again of animal sacrifices during the millennial reign of Christ. In dispensationalism, the return of the sacrifices will be ceremonial in nature. Like the ceremony of Communion or the Lord's Supper they believe that the sacrifices will be performed on the appointed feast days in the future Millennium. Cf. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come. (Zondervan: 1965).

They say that the reason the animal sacrifices will continue is because they will be enacted as a memorial to the Savior who came to earth as the Sacrificial Lamb. However, critics view the idea of blood sacrifices re-instututed after Christ's return as incompatible with Christ's completed work and find the idea abhorrent (see O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p.248).

 

[blhowes]

If you look it up in the 'old' Scofield it explicitly teaches Christ and his saints set up animal sacrifices again for sin atonement.

…which is a repugnant, Christ-mocking heresy of monumental proportions.

When I get home, I'd like to check into that (if I still have the Scofield Bible). Which passage does he talk about that?

 

[Herald]

I find the idea of millennial sacrifices to be repugnant and ignorant. Repugnant because it's imagery substitutes the precious blood of Christ with blood that could never save. Ignorant because dismisses the rembrance inherent in the Lord's Supper, "Do this in rememberance of me..." Dispensationalism displays it's contradictory system.

 

[blhowes]

I find the idea of millennial sacrifices to be repugnant and ignorant. Repugnant because it's imagery substitutes the precious blood of Christ with blood that could never save. Ignorant because dismisses the rembrance inherent in the Lord's Supper, "Do this in rememberance of me..." Dispensationalism displays it's contradictory system.

To me, in addition, it would just seem weird to have Jesus sitting on his throne, the one who endured all he did on the cross, watching a type of what He did or having others watch a type of what He did.

 

[Archlute]

Yes, as I recall in the Left Behind series, world emperor and antichrist, Nicholas Carpathia responded to the outcry of the animal rights groups and outlawed animal sacrifice. It was half way through the tribulation period.

Because you know that those works hold theological weight and authority- it's like having an entire series of sytematics right next to your nightstand

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 01:32:25 EST-----

While attending a Dispensational seminary I was taught in their bib studies courses that the sacrifices were set up with God's blessing, that they were "to help us look back to the finished work of Christ" (I always wondered what happened to the Lord's Supper), and that it would be a requirement for all Jews and Gentiles, during Christ's millennial reign, to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

It was a very helpful course. It helped me to finalize my decision to head for a Reformed seminary!