Alva J. McClain, a defender of premillennial eschatology, wrote the following under the subheading of “Problem of Animal Sacrifice” vis-à-vis Ezek 40-48 and the eschatological temple in Jerusalem:
The association of animal sacrifices with Ezekiel’s temple has been declared utterly incompatible with any literal fulfilment of the prophecy. On this point. Dr. Gardiner speaks of the objectors as follows: “For it is impossible to conceive, in view of the whole relation between the old and new dispensations, as set forth in Scripture, that animal sacrifices can ever again be restored by divine command.” Here it must be admitted that a future renewal of animal sacrifices raises some very serious problems, but most of these have been answered satisfactorily by premillennial writers. Only two problems will be discussed here briefly:
First, to the objection that a renewal of “expiatory” animal sacrifices is unthinkable and would deny the complete efficacy of our Lord’s atoning death, the reply is very simple: no animal sacrifice in the Bible has ever had any expiatory efficacy. Yet Dr. Allis says that such sacrifices were “expiatory” and “efficacious in the days of Moses and David.” This is a deplorable misuse of words into which he seems to have been inadvertently led by his zeal to refute any such literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Such terms as “expiatory” and “efficacious” should never have been used as descriptive of sacrifices which, according to the New Testament, could not take away human sin (Heb. 10:4). As to the future, Dr. Allis says, “There is not the slightest hint in Ezekiel’s description of these sacrifices that they will be simply memorial.” But why should Ezekiel have discussed the point at all? This prophet doubtless understood, as the Epistle to the Hebrews plainly states, that the Old Testament sacrifices were only “a shadow of the good things to come” and “a remembrance made of sins year by year” (10:1-3, ASV). The word “remembrance” here represents the same Greek word (anamnesis) used by our Lord when He said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25). Certainly no evangelical interpretation of the Christian Eucharist would attach to it any expiatory efficacy. Likewise, there was nothing of this kind attached to the Old Testament sacrifices. These sacrifices were simply a “remembrance” of the sins committed, and pointed forward to the one sacrifice which would take them away. What could be wrong, therefore, with a pattern of symbols in the future to remind the worshipper not only of his sin but also of an expiation which at Calvary was accomplished once for all, for all who believe? As the godly H. Bonar once wrote: “Why should not the temple, the worship, the rites, the sacrifices, be allowed to point to the Lamb that was slain, in the Millennial age, if such be the purpose of the Father . . . And if God should have yet a wider circle of truth to open up to us out of His word concerning His Son, why should He not construct a new apparatus for the illustration of that truth?”
Second, the idea of a renewal of any animal sacrifices has been denounced as “carnal” and “Judaistic” in origin. In reply it may be said that not a few things in Christianity are derived from Judaism. There is nothing necessarily invidious about such an origin. Consider, for example, some of the forms and special days observed in the Christian Church. The practice of water baptism, all authorities agree, has a definite background in historical Jewish practices. The same can be said of the Lord’s Supper or agape, and the Eucharist which attended it. The Day of Pentecost on which the Christian Church was founded, and which in Christian history has been celebrated almost universally, was the second of the great Jewish national festivals. To condemn in advance any practice which may have had a “Judaistic” background is dubious business, and smacks of that anti-Jewish prejudice which has too often marked the course of Church history. (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God [Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959], 249-51)
In an article entitled "The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48," Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July-September 1995), pp. 279-89, Jerry M. Hullinger discusses the nature of the sacrifices in these chapters. While the entire article should be read, he concludes thusly:
Ezekiel 40-48 indicates that during the millennium God's glory will return to the temple where sacrificial ritual will take place and in which offerings will make atonement. For Ezekiel the concept of atonement is the same as it was in the Book of Leviticus, namely, an act that wipes away and purges uncleanness.
This purgation will be required because the divine presence will once again be dwelling in the land. As argued earlier, impurity is contagious to both persons and sancta. Further, impurity is inimical to Yahweh, who refuses to dwell among a people if uncleanness remains untreated. Because of God's promise to dwell on earth during the millennium (as stated in the New Covenant), it is necessary that He protect His presence through sacrifice. This function of sacrifices, according to the Book of Hebrews, is efficacious. However, this was never the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, for it dealt with the internal cleansing of the conscience.
Therefore the two are harmonious. It should be further added that this sacrificial system will be a temporary one in that the millennium (with its partial population of unglorified humanity) will last only one thousand years. During the eternal state all inhabitants of the New Jerusalem will be glorified and will therefore not be a source of contagious impurities to defile the holiness of Yahweh.
Further Reading
Old Testament Practices and Mormonism (a response to some arguments by the Tanners in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?)
