It started with a comment from Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, about the building of the third temple in Jerusalem. Hegseth is a Christian and to some appeared a little too eager to see it happen.
Then Doug Wilson responded with a post about the challenges he believes another temple presents for dispensational theology. Doug generously acknowledges that like other Christians, dispensationalists believe the Christian church replaced the temple service in our present era in God’s plans and purposes. We also take Bible prophecy literally wherever that seems reasonable.
But Doug believes the rebuilding of a temple in Jerusalem is going to be a troublesome issue for dispensationalists.
A Huge Embarrassment
How so? Doug writes:
“So a rebuilt Temple, prayed for by the Jews, and predicted numerous times in prophecy seminars by the dispensationists, would actually be a huge embarrassment for everybody if it ever came to pass. The Temple as an unrealized ideal is one thing, but an actual Temple would require a restoration of the priesthood, and a resumption of the animal sacrifices. For the Jews, this would be awkward because Talmudic Judaism has developed into something that does not require a Temple. And a rebuilt Temple would require a host of other recovered things, like the Sanhedrin, like accurate genealogies for priests and Levites, like a recovery of the Urim and Thummim, and so on.
And dispensationalists are going to have the challenge of fitting the whole apparatus into the book of Hebrews. The issue for them will not be whether the sacrifices are happening, but whether or not God is accepting them. If they say no, then what’s the point? If they say yes, then didn’t Christ die once for all?”
Embarrassment? Difficulty? Not in the slightest.
On to Romans 11
For one, we believe the Church Age is a period in history sandwiched between two eras in which the Lord’s witness to the world came (and will come once again) primarily through the people of Israel. It’s been a great couple of thousand years in many respects, filled with unprecedented blessings both for Gentiles and for Jews who become Christians. Nevertheless, this period in God’s dealings with mankind will come to an end. Personally, I believe we’re getting close. Dispensationalists do not believe Israel as a nation has been permanently excluded from God’s blessing, replaced by us forever, as Doug and his supersessionist friends do. We read the teaching in Romans 11 as a promise that “all [remaining, national] Israel will be saved” in a future day and enjoy the blessings of millennial earth when the Lord Jesus returns to rule over the world from Jerusalem.
For another, dispensationalists are not sure any of us Christians, Doug and friends very much included, are likely to be around to argue about a rebuilt temple or the efficacy of its sacrifices. We expect our Lord to return for us and take us to be with him forever prior to the unleashing of the period scripture calls “the time of Jacob’s trouble” and the “great tribulation”. I look forward to the look of stunned surprise on a few supersessionist faces as we meet the Lord in the air.
Concerning a Future Temple
Now, it’s not impossible some work will get done on a new temple prior to that point. I suppose it’s not even impossible that Jews may start sacrificing in Jerusalem again on the temple mount for some brief period while the Church remains in the world notwithstanding the current Muslim presence, though I think it unlikely. But if such sacrifices ever do take place, they will be made in theological error by an Israel that continues to reject its Messiah and does not understand that the entire temple service was designed to point forward to the sacrifice of Christ.
To offer such sacrifices during the Church Age would indeed be futile, but I fail to see how it poses any difficulty for dispensational theology. It would only be a problem if we were to insist that sacrifices offered by people who reject Christ and the word of the Lord are in any way efficacious for the forgiveness of sins. We are well into the realm of the hypothetical, but I would argue they would not be in the future, just as they never were in the past. There is only one way sins have ever been forgiven, and that’s by grace through faith, whether it’s the faith of a devout Jew in centuries past or the faith of a Christian believer in the present Church Age.
The Return of the King
Scripture teaches a time will come when Israel finally experiences national repentance and its Messiah returns to reign. We certainly find a future temple and its sacrifices prophesied in that context. You can find posts on that subject here and here.
Let me finish by quoting that (very dispensational) writer concerning the purpose of the temple and its sacrifices during the coming millennial reign of Christ. The relevant argument she makes for future temple service is the bolded text in her second bullet point below:
“One may well ask, if Ezekiel’s temple is indeed literal, future, and millennial in nature, what purpose the temple sacrifices serve. Since Christ has already provided a once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sin, is it not blasphemy to suggest that in His earthly kingdom any blood sacrifices would be necessary? Does the presence of sacrifices therefore not point so a symbolic or historical interpretation of the passage?
The answer to both questions is no. There is no reason to believe that a future sacrificial system could not be perfectly within the will of God for His people:
- Firstly, the emphasis in Ezekiel’s temple is on holiness. By faithfully following the Lord’s commandments regarding worship and sacrifice, the nation of Israel will demonstrate to the world the transforming power of God in their once-stubborn and idolatrous hearts, and their unique relationship to Him.
- Secondly, the sacrifices offered are symbolic, not efficacious. This was also true even of the Mosaic sacrifices — the only difference here is that the millennium looks back at Christ’s death as a historical reality, whereas the Israelites of the Old Testament economy looked forward to a Messianic promise of cleansing and atonement in the shadowy future.
If at first the suggestion that the blood sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple serve a purely commemorative purpose seems bizarre, one may well consider the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. At this present time the church, composed of Jew and Gentile united in Christ, is in focus. Though the reality — the suffering and death of Christ — has already taken place, the church today still partakes of bread and wine in remembrance of His past work. This institution was set up by the Lord Jesus Himself.
However, in the millennial kingdom restored Israel, not the church, is the focus. In keeping with the Mosaic covenant unique to Israel, animal sacrifices will remind the believing Jews of Christ’s finished work.
Note, however, that in the millennium there is no Day of Atonement, and numerous other distinctions serve to remind us that Christ’s death forever altered God’s dealings with mankind.
Also, Ezekiel’s temple and its unique sacrificial system come into play after Israel has recognized Jesus as the Messiah they pierced. There can be no danger that these Jews will forget His death on their behalf.
In light of these evidences, then, there seems no reason to believe that Ezekiel’s temple is any less than it seems to be from the text itself — a literal building constructed by a truly repentant and restored nation of Israel, and in which they will worship the Lord by offering and sacrifice.”
I’m just not seeing a problem for dispensational theology here, and I’m really trying. It’s only a problem for theologians arguing that animal sacrifices in any age did anything more for the sinner than point him to Christ. Jews and Christians have different symbols, but forward or backward, they all point to the same person.
No comments :
Post a Comment